×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 16 Released: More HTML5 Support

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Firefox 133

Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox 16, which includes a number of new tools for developers. "A number of HTML5 code has been 'unprefixed,' which means that Mozilla has decided it has matured enough to run in the browser without causing instability. The newly unshackled HTML5 includes CSS3 Animations, Transforms, Transitions, Image Values, Values and Units, and IndexedDB. Two Web APIs that Mozilla helped to create, Battery API and Vibration API, are also now unprefixed. These changes help keep Firefox competitive, but it also sends a signal to developers that Mozilla thinks these are good enough to begin baking into their sites. It's a strong endorsement of the 'future-Web' tech." Here's the complete change list and the download page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

133 comments

i got coffee farts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598611)

frosty too

Inflation LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598627)

Yeah but why not just wait for Firefox 30 that'll come out a week from tomorrow?

Re:Inflation LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599003)

god damn obama ruining our grandchildren's future!

Re:Inflation LOL (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599815)

I think it is time for Slashdot to limit all these Firefox "major" release articles. Because the team just be decided to be stupid with their number scheme, it doesn't mean every new number is really newsworthy.

Re:Inflation LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41601423)

You don't have to click your way here. I certainly don't click on every line that pops up in my feed reader.

BTW, congrats on getting a +5 on a subject that's not newsworthy. Nobody will stop by to see your accomplishment. Hang your head having wasted your time on something so uninteresting.

Also you should realize by now, as I'm sure you click every. singe. uninteresting. Firefox. article. you come across, that any amount of bitching about the version numbering or the press coverage there off is ineffective and clearly redundant by now. Your comment is not worth the mod points.

At any rate, adding comments to an article, won't get them off the list any faster. Articles with more comments get more attention ya dunce.

Why CNET? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598631)

What information does the CNET article contribute on this matter, exactly? Why not at least link to Google News? Why contribute to the Web becoming a pile of ads and sharing buttons? Why, Slashdot, why?

Re:Why CNET? (4, Insightful)

BenJury (977929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599405)

So we have something else to write about, otherwise the whole thread would be complaning about the version numbers,,,

Final Version? (3, Funny)

aero2600-5 (797736) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598657)

"Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox 16"

They're calling it quits? Or did you mean the "latest" version of Firefox?

Re:Final Version? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598671)

Maybe it's the final version of Firefox 16. Next one will be version 17

Re:Final Version? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598781)

The change in air pressure caused by the speed at which that joke flew past your head did not make the traditional "Woosh" noise but rather caused a huge sonic bang which caused thirteen kittens in the area to become deaf. I hope you're happy.

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598889)

no, the parent clearly misunderstood the tagline, tried to make a joke out of it, then the AC pointed out that he misunderstood it.

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599031)

Not to be outdone, the AC pointlessly reiterated the entire thread. The void created by the negative value when added to the already pointless thread threatened to implode the universe.

Re:Final Version? (2)

dhalsim2 (626618) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598693)

They're calling it quits on Firefox 16. No more Firefox 16s.

Oh how I was looking forward to another Firefox 16. Too bad.

Re:Final Version? (1)

jo42 (227475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599129)

I'm waiting for Firefox 42.0 -- that should be here, what, next spring give the proclivity to versionNumber++ so often...

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599197)

And it'll have full HTML7 supprt.

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599455)

Well, that should put an end to the version inflation, shouldn't it? I mean, there's really no way to go after you've released the version that is the answer to the meaning of life, universe and everything, right?

Re:Final Version? (3, Insightful)

doom (14564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599521)

I've been wondering how the iceweasel fork is doing in Debian. It could be the thing that makes me switch back from Ubuntu.

Debian actually distinguishes between security fixes and UI changes. That's sounding better to me all the time.

Re:Final Version? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599867)

um you can simply install iceweasel on ubuntu its in the repo if memory serves me. last i looked at debian (in a vm) it had some odd behavior with gksudo, and no easy way to get all of the media codex installed and the proprietary drivers. While ubuntu has its problems (the break psychological breaks with reality which spawned unity) the sudden surge of interest in new areas that are just as suddenly forgotten, (android on ubuntu, ubuntu netbook, ubuntu tv and soon ubuntu for android) but it is overall still fairly easy stable problem free desktop once you run

apt-get install {Insert Desktop Environment of Choice}
apt-get purge *unity*
apt-get install synaptic

from a command line then log out and back in. in debian you have to add repos for codexes another for you drivers in ubuntu they are there and just need enabled.

Re:Final Version? (1)

doom (14564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600299)

For me, this doesn't turn up any obvious package for iceweasel on ubuntu: apt-cache search iceweasel

And yes, you have a point about ubuntu's direction, or lack thereof.

Re:Final Version? (2)

EMR (13768) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599709)

I'm waiting for Firefox 42.0 -- that should be here, what, next spring give the proclivity to versionNumber++ so often...

You do realize Google Chrome is at version 22.0?

Re:Final Version? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600101)

No, they will only get to Firefox 41. Firefox 42 is scheduled for end of December, however a Vogon construction fleet will come and destroy the world.

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598717)

Perhaps the submitter meant "final" as in not FF 16 beta, or FF16-release-candidate-6, but FF 16 final.

Re:Final Version? (4, Informative)

American AC in Paris (230456) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598771)

"Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox 16"

They're calling it quits? Or did you mean the "latest" version of Firefox?

"Final" and "Latest" both have specific, though different, meanings. "Final" indicates that a particular build is considered the official release for a specific version of a piece of software; contrast "final" with "alpha", "beta", and "release candidate". "Latest" indicates that there is no more recent version of the software available.

Thus, while a mature software package can have many "final" versions, there is only ever one "latest" version of that piece of software (discounting programs with multiple release vectors and channels, where each release vector will typically have its own "latest" version--i.e., you can have a "latest" nightly build and a "latest" official release for the same project.)

Re:Final Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599151)

Ick. Are you sure that "final" and "latest" have specific though different meanings when it comes to Firefox? I've looked at the phrase "final version of Firefox 16" ten or fifteen times now, and I understand it in the same way as "Linus released the final version of kernel 3.6.1."

Re:Final Version? (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599457)

"Final" and "Latest" both have specific, though different, meanings. "Final" indicates that a particular build is considered the official release for a specific version of a piece of software; contrast "final" with "alpha", "beta", and "release candidate". "Latest" indicates that there is no more recent version of the software available.

"Final" is a modifier on "Firefox 16". "16" is a modifier on Firefox. The phrase you interpreted this as would have another comma ala: "Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox, 16". The gods know there is plenty of crappy grammar in tech release notes and news articles about them, but this seems to be a case of proper punctuation misinterpreted by those who don't know it well enough.

Re:Final Version? (3, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599415)

"Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox 16"

They're calling it quits? Or did you mean the "latest" version of Firefox?

This is Firefox 16 v1.0. The first bugfix release will be Firefox 16 v2.0.

Re:Final Version? (2)

kat_skan (5219) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600085)

Oh so that's what "final" means. They're switching to the Final Fantasy versioning scheme.

Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598665)

Cue the whine brigade complaining that firefox is "Bloated". These are the same people that complain that firefox is behind the curve for not adding new features all the time.

Whatever your complaints, I still find myself coming back to firefox because of the addons. Chrome is getting better and many of the most popular ones are there - But it's still not there. Some addons have reduced functionality because of the more restrictive API, or they're not well developed enough yet for Chrome. The more obscure, but damn useful ones are pretty much firefox only.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598765)

Yup this is exactly how I feel. I use Firefox because of the addons and I install Chrome on everyone else's computer.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598925)

You're whining too. The people who think firefox is not bloat whine about the whiners. It's irritating both ways. One side won't admit there were problems and the other side won't admit progress has been made. I think anyone who actually looks at the source code for firefox will admit there is bloat and it's nasty. It's also not friendly for porting to new operating systems.

Firefox is lacking many features that other browsers have. Developer tools come to mind. Everyone else ships them. With firefox, I have to get firebug which is buggy on new versions and causes frequent pain. The UI of firebug could be better and it's bad in part because it's a plugin. It's also ten times slower loading a page with firebug on. I don't see that problem in Chrome.

You can't argue against team plugin. Plugin people, that is people who believe everything should be a plugin, are a huge liability and they negatively affect many open source projects including Eclipse, Firefox, and Gnome. It looks good on paper.. modular, independent development cycles, etc. There's two huge fails.. first the plugin API has to be very good and very open for everything to work which can introduce security problems. Second, many popular combinations are never tested. The firefox memory bloat problem is almost nonexistent on a spartan (no plugin) firefox install, but it balloons when people actually install crap to make it usable. Those combinations are never tested together and plugins fighting with each other is the reason people have to install ten versions of eclipse. No one wants to admit there are problems making everything a plugin and they've solved it this time. No, they haven't. It can't be done. Firefox devs should instead figure out what would make most people happy and build that stuff into firefox and test it like crazy. I think it's safe to say firebug and adblock are necessary because most people use at least one of those that talk about plugins or still care about firefox.

Comparing memory footprints of a fantasy firefox install with no plugins is useless. You must look at what people really use and tune that. Then the complaints can slow down or go away. Chrome is fast as hell and it still comes with developer tools. How did they do that i wonder... I bet mozilla has download stats for some plugins or at least what is popular to search for on their addon site. Put those in firefox base already and improve them. Seriously, it's not that complicated and it gives you a nice roadmap for the next 17 releases. Catch up guys.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599487)

Firefox is lacking many features that other browsers have. Developer tools come to mind. Everyone else ships them.

Sure if you ignore the development tool (inspect element) which I think came out around Firefox 11 , and the "..new tools for developers." mentioned in the summary.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599753)

I think it's quite fair to ignore the "Inspect Element" feature when discussing developer tools. IE8 has better, from the perspective of development needs.If all you need is to see where something is in the DOM hierarchy, fine, use Inpect Element and be happy. If you actually need development tools on Firfox - you know, proper script debuggers and stylesheet inheritance info and page-load profilers and such - you have to use extensions.

To be fair, Firebug (the main extension in question) did kind of lead the way here, driving a lot of developer attention to Firefox.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

doom (14564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599683)

Second, many popular combinations are never tested.

Are you sure that that's really it? Or could it be that the plugins are never tested, period, let alone in combination with each other?

I'm thinking about the case of the perl ecosystem, where CPAN packages all have automated test suites, and in effect make up an extended set of tests for the perl core.

To my knowledge, there isn't a lot of work put in on testing different permutations of package installations, but perl is still way ahead of most other software projects in maintaining backwards compatibility.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598939)

I also use Firefox because of the addons.
However, I still think its memory use is ridiculously high. Luckily, I am nowhere near filling up all my RAM with my average computer usage.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (4, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600133)

Last time i checked it eats less memory than chrome and i haven't seen anybody complaining about chrome being a hog

Firefox calculates the size of cache for back button and shit based on the amount of RAM available. Go to about:config and change it if you don't like it
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [mozillazine.org]

Modern websites are running ridiculous amounts of javascript, huge flash objects and what not. about:memory claims that the single tab with main page of fb (no content on the wall/newsfeed, not subscribed to anybody) sits at 40M (no idea what it contains). Some pages are bundled with so much crap that NoScript showing the list of 3rd party jscript sources doesn't fit in 1200px high monitor. NoScript is a must.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600973)

Freshly started and sitting at 160mb for me, google.com, with one plugin installed, adblock.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600017)

I stopped using Chrome when I couldn't install it on my D: drive without hacking.

Plugins? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600525)

why is it that I can't uninstall a plugin? Once installed, plugins are forever? Like diamonds?

Yes I know you can disabled it, but that's not the same thing.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41600867)

Whine brigade present, Sir! Though I don't give a fuck about bloated, I care about useability and as far as I'm concerned, Firefox sucks.

Number da one: the thing is called an address bar. Not an "Awesome bar". (Side note, can the guy or gal who came up with that name please be taken outside and shot? Thanks!) I know what I'm doing, I know where I'm going, just show the goddamn addresses that start with the letters I typed.

Number da two: status bar. nuff said.

Number da three: right-click menu option change (tab first, window second). I don't use Chrome, don't care, IE and Opera both had the same order Firefox had, the change in order was stupid. Don't mess with my muscle memory for no reason!

All in all, I'm still on Firefox 3.6, although I'll probably change my main browser to Opera soon. Kicking and screaming. I still maintain, the bullshit surrounding the Qute/Winstripe change was an early warning about the fuckedupedness of Firefox. And every release they have managed to make their browser just a tad more unusable to me. I know, I'm off to survey my lawn, my gooberdom, my kingdom.

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601187)

Number da one: the thing is called an address bar. Not an "Awesome bar". (Side note, can the guy or gal who came up with that name please be taken outside and shot? Thanks!) I know what I'm doing, I know where I'm going, just show the goddamn addresses that start with the letters I typed.

sorry, the address bar rocks. All 20 websites i use frequently are there after max 2 keypresses without a fail. Typing for the typing sake is overrated.

Number da two: status bar. nuff said.

regrettable, but status-4-evar is not exactly unavailable. You should also whine that the address bar hides the protocol part of urls by default and you have to type about:config once to change that. Oh the horrors ;-)

right-click menu option change (tab first, window second). I don't use Chrome, don't care, IE and Opera both had the same order Firefox had, the change in order was stupid. Don't mess with my muscle memory for no reason!

stop being a noob and use ctrl+lmb for new tab (or middleclick) and shift+lmb for new window

Re:Bloated or obsolte? Make up your mind. (2)

neminem (561346) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601041)

We are? As far as I've seen, far more people complain about the former, and people complaining about the latter are rarely the same people? Mostly I've just seen people complaining that new Firefox versions the past couple years rarely if ever contain exciting new features, and that as a result it's ridiculous that every minor version update is claimed to be a major version update. The issue is not that it doesn't contain exciting new features, but that its numbering scheme claims that it -does-.

I'm still on Firefox, though, because there are just aren't any good replacements. Yes, Chrome is way faster, but even disregarding Firefox's much better extensibility (if nothing else, Chrome's Greasemonkey is totally crippled, which from what I've heard, is intentional), there are also a large number of things I just don't like about the UI. (Which I suppose also relates to the extensibility; there are things I don't like about FF's UI, too, you can just -fix- them all with various tweaks/addons/etc.)

I think there's something wrong (5, Funny)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598667)

I think there's something wrong with this version of Firefox. I just updated, and not a single one of my plugins was disabled because of incompatibility!

Maybe someone should make a "Firefox Nostalgia" plugin. It detects when firefox is updated, and generates a random "The following plugins have been disabled..." alert window.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598767)

It'll break with the next version

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598791)

The only plugin I have installed is Flash player, and Firefox updates have never disabled it.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598813)

That's too bad, because if there's one plugin that deserves to be disabled whenever possible - it's Flash.

Re:I think there's something wrong (3, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598967)

And that's what flashblock is for.

PS: I'm still waiting for HTML5-Block.
You just know the HTML5 ads will be horribly intrusive.

Re:I think there's something wrong (3, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599901)

NoScript (which is better than FlashBlock anyway) can block not only Flash and Silverlight, but also other plugins, web fonts, video and audio tags, WebGL, and frames and iframes. It does not block svg or canvas, but those will not be doing too much without JS.

Re:I think there's something wrong (3, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600267)

I have come to prefer Quickjava [mozilla.org]. It let's you toggle Java, Javascript, Cookies, Image Animations, Flash, Silverlight, Images, Stylesheets and Proxy quickly. If I encounter a site that is annoying I just toggle the appropriate plugin until I leave that site. The only thing it lacks is the ability to toggle per tab. If it had that it would be perfect.

Re:I think there's something wrong (2)

t0y (700664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601397)

You can also try the built in click to play feature:

1. Disable/remove flashblock
2. Type "about:config" in the address bar and press Enter
3. Say "yes, I know what I'm doing" if asks
4. Search for the setting named "plugins.click_to_play"
5. Set it to "true"

Note: not working 100% yet on version 16 IIRC.

Re:I think there's something wrong (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599103)

That's too bad, because if there's one plugin that deserves to be disabled whenever possible - it's Flash.

So what do you propose as a replacement? SVG? Inkscape still doesn't support animation and scripting, so how would one develop those little vector-based games that Flash is currently used for (and mere video tag can't replace)?

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599177)

andnothingofvaluewaslost

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599269)

With apps.

Seriously. Little web games are not a good enough reason to install Flash with all it's security & stability issues.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599845)

SVG could have been a great standard. A shame it turned out to be such a mess. Worse, it turned out to be a poorly supported mess! Had they not tied it to the DOM, not jumped on the XML bandwagon, and let you treat it like other image resources, it would have been really great.

For animation-heavy flash-like content the best option right now is canvas. Growing support for WebGL and handy libraries like Glow and Three.js make it a nice option for even the least competent developer.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41600109)

Why would you need a replacement? That would defeat the purpose. I apologise if I'm wrong, but it looks like you interpreted a comment about the Flash browser plugin as being about Flash Professional. You seem to like Adobe software, so just upgrade to Flash Professional CS6 [adobe.com] which can output to HTML5+Javascript instead of flash objects and you can continue to develop your vector games the way you're used to.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41600485)

What about the existing flash games/content not yet converted?

You're a fascist and definitely haven't had kids.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41601083)

What about them? If you want to play Flash games then don't disable your Flash browser plugin.

Why fascist? That's quite a... random accusation.

Re:I think there's something wrong (0)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599119)

Something is wrong.. because meanwhile, in the real world, you have to keep up the the Joneses IE6's habits, still can't use even CSS2, tables all the way, minimal js, but better avoid JS altogether to let in no-script visitors.

Re:I think there's something wrong (1)

doom (14564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599751)

I think there's something wrong with this version of Firefox. I just updated, and not a single one of my plugins was disabled because of incompatibility!

Well, the behavior that I'm seeing is every third time I power up my laptop, firefox keeps me waiting while it wants to phones home to check my "addons", and my preferred theme keeps getting automatically disabled, so I have to manually re-enable it and re-start firefox again. To their credit, they haven't *completely broken* the theme, which they used to do on every upgrade, but then, I used to be in control over when I upgraded... It is not clear to me that all this is Progress.

Version Number Madness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598687)

Dear Mozilla-

How about they stop the rapid release garbage and fix things that are broken rather than breaking things in the process. That "feature" rolled out this weekend where it warns you about out of date plugins is a joke and has been nothing but a support nightmare for people like me. How about some documentation about this "feature" and how we can disable or white list plugins? Not everyone needs Java 7.x. Some of us NEED Java 6 because our work sites aren't compatible with Java 7.

Are we going to break out the party hats and streamers when the FireFox version number hits 20 or 50? You've now had more version numbers than Yahoo and HP had CEO's in the past 10 years!!!

Helpful hint: Increasing your version number does not add inches to your...

Re:Version Number Madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41600641)

Did you bother to read the list of fixed bugs in version 16?

Re:Version Number Madness (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600683)

ummm that wouldn't be implemented until at least firefox 18, so it won't be bothering you for another 6 months or so unless you are running on the beta channel - in which case it serves you right, but you'll have the chance to do something about it before it is too late

Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (2, Interesting)

c0l0 (826165) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598779)

"A number of HTML5 code has been 'unprefixed,' which means that Mozilla has decided it has matured enough to run in the browser without causing instability." - come on, how dumb is that? If there were a vendor-sanctioned CSS attribute or "HTML5 code" (or whatever, really) that was known to cause "instability" in one of the world's most widely-deployed and -used applications, trolls and/or crackers would make ABUNDANT use of that inherent weakness, prefixed or not.

Now, I don't know for sure how HTML5 "standardization" (if you can stomach calling it that...) actually works, but what I happen to have picked up is this: In reality, that kind of "prefixing" (extending the name of a soon-to-be-"standardized" identifier with a vendor-specific keyword) takes place because the vendor probably still works out implementation details, or isn't 100% sure if he wants to really do whatever the feature/thing is doing right now the way it is doing right now forever. It's some kind of "this is just a draft"-hint, like, for example, "X-"-prefixed HTTP and SMTP header data (used to be - they're abused for other, this-aint-in-the-official-standard-but-we-need-it-anyway-things today, of course). If using any of this causes the browser that implements it to crash or be otherwise unstable (and therefore potentially exploitable), that's a _grave_ bug, and certainly not something that any of the industry heavyweights (well, except for Apple and Microsoft maybe... hehe) would tolerate to occur in the wild for more than a few hours, until an appropriate patch is released.

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598853)

If using any of this causes the browser that implements it to crash or be otherwise unstable (and therefore potentially exploitable), that's a _grave_ bug, and certainly not something that any of the industry heavyweights (well, except for Apple and Microsoft maybe... hehe) would tolerate to occur in the wild for more than a few hours, until an appropriate patch is released.

You're aware that Chrome uses the same rendering engine as Safari, aren't you?

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (3, Interesting)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599879)

Indeed, but not all webkit browsers are equal -- not by a long shot [html5test.com].

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (3, Interesting)

AndrewStephens (815287) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600905)

Speaking of HTML5test, I just ran a before and after test with firefox 15 and firefox 16:

Firefox 15: 346 out of 500
Firefox 16: 363 out of 500
Chrome 22: 437 out of 500

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598965)

Yeah, my favorite part was the "These changes help keep Firefox competitive, but it also sends a signal to developers that Mozilla thinks these are good enough to begin baking into their sites. It's a strong endorsement of the 'future-Web' tech."

I guess we get the best summaries money can buy.

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598969)

Not all instability leads to crashes. If something is unstable, it means it isn't stable. "Stable" means it's not changing. A feature whose exact implementation is expected to change in the near future. This might mean that a few edge cases are known that will render funny, or maybe the code just isn't clean enough for the devs' preference (as though that would ever stop a release...).

Prefixed features are a warning to developers. They say "This is coming, but it might still be screwy". Someone using the prefixed feature shouldn't complain when their masterpiece website suddenly looks different in the next release of the browser because they were abusing a flaw in the implementation.

As a concrete (hypothetical) example, consider animating the rotation effect on a square image. If the browser is built to compute the layout before applying rotation, nothing else on the page will move. If the layout comes after the rotation, blocks could move around as the rectangular dimensions of the image's block change. Regardless of what behavior is standard, a developer could rely on the other. Having a prefix warns him that it's not quite finished.

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599643)

Bad form to reply to myself, but also bad proofreading:

. A feature whose exact implementation is expected to change in the near future.

A feature whose exact implementation is expected to change in the near future should be prefixed.

FTFM

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599627)

It isn't really a case of it being unstable, that part IS bullshit.

What is really the problem is whether or not the spec is finished as is and ready to implement.
For all intents and purposes, I can't see what else they could really do to some of these things to extend on them.
Transform is one thing they had a case of keeping measurement units for the transformation matrix last 2 values.
But from what I understand, these values NEED to be pixel values anyway, so making it redundant. (I could be wrong, but I never saw a mention of it using any other types since being a matrix it would work directly with pixel data and should never really be used in CSS rules anyway, but is still exposed due to the way things are integrated. )
Everything else too, besides IndexedDB. That is one thing I haven't used at all, so I have no idea.

Kinda glad because I have began using transforms as an experiment.
Sadly, Canvas is just downright awful for working with static stuff. (textures)
Even with caching them. Even with drawing the entire canvas on a buffer canvas and then save-loading the buffer canvas to the visible canvas. (and text support is downright awful right now. I ended up making a hybrid of canvas drawing+textarea, which is much better than the current mess of custom borders and so on)
I'll still keep a layer there for some things. But other things, CSS3 extensions have made it redundant.
The only annoying thing is now I need to wrap my head around these transforms manually since there was no translation layer to it, you literally can only access the matrix values. Oh well, only a little extra math. Worth it for removing the need to waste a lot of time reinventing wheels.

Re:Now that summary is BS - at least in part. (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599777)

What I find really irritating is that the web font printing bug was finally marked as fixed in Bugzilla two weeks ago.

It didn't make it into Firefox 16.

What is the point of having a 6-week release cycle if you're not including bugs you've fixed during that period?

Madness I tell you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598827)

How about they stop the rapid release garbage and fix things that are broken rather than breaking things in the process. That "feature" rolled out this weekend where it warns you about out of date plugins is a joke and has been nothing but a support nightmare for people like me. How about some documentation about this "feature" and how we can disable or white list plugins? Not everyone needs Java 7.x. Some of us NEED Java 6 because our work sites aren't compatible with Java 7.

Are we going to break out the party hats and streamers when the FireFox version number hits 20 or 50? You've now had more version numbers than Yahoo and HP had CEO's in the past 10 years!!!

Helpful hint: Increasing your version number does not add inches to your...

Command line (5, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598837)

The command line [youtube.com] feature looks very cool. It'd be even better if that could be controlled from outside Firefox, basically making Firefox scriptable -- for automated Firefox testing, Website testing, taking screenshots, etc.

Re:Command line (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601363)

That is pretty neat. My favorite take-home feature from that particular video is the command-line driven screen shot tool. Just give it an HTML ID and voila! (even if that html element extends offscreen, I get a 'perfectly cropped' image of the element. Noted for future reference. Thanks!

Hmmm, and scripting that. oh my, the mind wanders. (BTW I've tried my darndest to use Selenium but Selenium never worked out given my feeble brain, but maybe I could have tried harder with more time commited).

Still crashes on pages with many high res images.. (1)

idealego (32141) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598857)

I'm starting to think they'll never fix this.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660577 [mozilla.org]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=683284 [mozilla.org]

Re:Still crashes on pages with many high res image (0)

s7uar7 (746699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598909)

It looks like you're going to have to use another browser for your porn^H^H^H^Himages.

Re:Still crashes on pages with many high res image (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598955)

It seems that they're working on it, just extremely slowly. If you open all of the bugs that those two depend on, these are the deepest roots. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742081 [mozilla.org] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=784591 [mozilla.org] The latter was being worked with on Sunday, while the former is lagging with activity, last commented on 3 months ago. You should probably expect it to be fixed in about three years.

IndexedDB is a little late to the game... (3, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598883)

I know WebSQL got scrubbed from the HTML5 spec a couple years ago, but during that time it got adopted in a usable way by webkit and opera. In the spec or not it's become the defacto standard for anyone doing HTML5 development for mobile devices, especially for use in off-line apps. Not only that, but at this point it's proven and reliable. I have a feeling it's going to be like H.264 vs WebM. The technical gurus will support one over the other due to ideological reasons, meanwhile the rest of us who are being paid to write things that work will continue going on using what works for us and our clients.

Right now WebSQL is supported on basically 99% of the mobile devices we see in our clients' hands. That includes iOS, Android, Blackberry, hell even Kindle and Nook. On the desktop it works on Safari, Chrome, and hell even FireFox with an extension.

Re:IndexedDB is a little late to the game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41598977)

We're using IDB in our web port.

IDB has IE10 support - that means Windows 8, and Windows mobile devices.

IDB works on Android in Chrome and Firefox browsers, no plugin needed.
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webdatabase/websql-indexeddb/

Battery and Vibration API (1)

PostPhil (739179) | about a year and a half ago | (#41598891)

The most important part of the summary. Discuss...

Re:Battery and Vibration API (1)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599039)

Let's just say that there's a reason the Firefox logo on the story is shown facing away from the camera, and leave it at that.

Re:Battery and Vibration API (2)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599147)

The vibration API could be useful for making web apps with notifications, I have no idea why a website or web app would need access to battery information. Since we already have location API's camera, video, and microphone API's, and WebGL (although most mobile browsers don't yet support it) webapps will soon be first class citizens thus breaking the walled garden (at least for online content, offline use is still a bit rough).

Re:Battery and Vibration API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41599997)

Just one idea, but browser based games could auto-save if battery life is low

Re:Battery and Vibration API (2)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600313)

webapps will soon be first class citizens thus breaking the walled garden

Apple has all but killed their initial commitment to web apps. They have one of the weakest mobile browsers on the market now. Worse, it inexplicably refuses to support things like WebGL (excepting in iAds, of course!)

It's a real shame.

I'd love to see a standard package type for web apps (something like a zip file with resources and a config file) with support across the mobile landscape. It would be great for both developers and users. I can see RIM, MS, and Google on-board, but it's unlikely that we'd see Apple join the party.

Re:Battery and Vibration API (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601405)

Apple ... They have one of the weakest mobile browsers on the market now.

Sure they have room to grow, but weakest? Honestly?

Still no HTML5 forms support worth mentioning (1)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599473)

There is still no HTML5 form support worth mentioning. Even IE10 is better at that now. They've added a bit of support for validators but the rendering still sucks.

Please fix it.

Re:Still no HTML5 forms support worth mentioning (2)

PRMan (959735) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599989)

Seriously. How hard is it to make <input type="datetime"> or <input type="color"> or <input type="number"> work?

Re:Still no HTML5 forms support worth mentioning (2)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601143)

Apparently it's a low priority. Chrome's date, for example, is awful. Why can't a select a year independent of a month?! To get to 2008, I need to keep selecting the first item in the drop-down and open the drop-down again to get older month/date pairs -- over and over and over -- until it finally appears.

Color isn't all that great either, now that I'm thinking about it, just an ugly button with a colored rectangle.

I could style them, but there aren't exactly a ton of options there. Even if you could make dramatic changes to the appearance, does the default have to look like a half-finished VB project from 1994?

Others like time and datetime just don't work at all. These are the kind of things I would have expected to see supported by now in all major browsers.

since when... (1)

alienzed (732782) | about a year and a half ago | (#41599661)

has one browser supporting something ever made it an option for web developpers. As a web developper, the only time I can bake functionality in is if 95% of users can use it. The only exception is IE 5-6-7, those users deserve to be see broken webpages.

Re:since when... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600025)

20% of a market share is a big enough chunk to help move things along. Combine that with Chrome's 30% market share and HTML5 support....

Incremental GC (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41600571)

From the mozilla javascript blog:

Firefox 16 will be the first version to support incremental garbage collection. This is a major feature, over a year in the making, that makes Firefox smoother and less laggy. With incremental GC, Firefox responds more quickly to mouse clicks and key presses. Animations and games will also draw more smoothly.

Focus on compatibility instead (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601177)

I've noticed Firefox having more and more problems rendering sites that Safari and Chrome have no trouble with. Version 16 has been especially bad.

Take a look at Panic's Coda site [panic.com] in Firefox 16. Those headers should not look like that; see Safari for proper rendering. If you look at the css for those headers:
#pitch h3 {
        font-family: "Chrono Regular", sans-serif;
        font-size: 34px;
        color: #436fa2;
        text-align: center;
        background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(#2c5b92 50%, #0a3978 100%);
        background-image: linear-gradient(#2c5b92 50%, #0a3978 100%);
}

So Firefox is not respecting the linear gradient as a background image for text. Can someone clarify whether this is part of the spec?
That is obviously a more advanced example, but I'm seeing many sites with layouts that are broken (most often navbars) in Firefox 16.

Chrome's flash player users 80% cpu Firefox 30% (4, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41601441)

Chrome's built in flash player uses 80% cpu on a quadcore where as IE and Firefox use 30% via adobe's on plugin.

I welcome Firefox 16. I'm sorry I ever left you.

On the upside, pages with background colors will no longer flash white like they do in chrome. YAY.

Chrome is bad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...