5 ms·

Neat idea, very poor implementation. If you try to view the examples in Google Chrome, you'll get a notice that you have to download Safari (http://skitch.com/b

Neat idea, very poor implementation. If you try to view the examples in Google Chrome, you'll get a notice that you have to download Safari (http://skitch.com/bradgessler/dgw7p/apple-html5 http://skitch.com/bradgessler/dgw7p/apple-html5) This sets a very poor example for Apple supporting standards.

haydenchambers 16y ago
Has this changed or is it only applicable to desktop? (Works fine from nexus one)
robertmrangel 16y ago
You are either for us or against us.
billpaetzke 16y ago
* Apple might be nudging people to use Safari as their main browser. * Apple might have limited to Safari to keep things simple--to be absolutely sure their demo would work 100%. * I agree that it sucks that their demos are only viewable w/ Safari. But there are plenty of HTML5 demos out there for us :)
- bradgessler 16y ago
  Its not that it sucks, its that Apple is being misleading about HTML5.
- instcode 16y ago
  Yes! Why doesn't Apple just let every browser run it and see how superior Safari is in term of HTML5 support? The answer is: Listen up, people! Download our Safari now! Time to ditch your IE, Opera, FF & Chrome!.. Oh, get a life! How mean you always are, Apple!
jpcx01 16y ago
Extremely lame that they check the user agent. They probably all work fine in Chrome since it uses webkit also (I believe Chrome uses a newer version even).
- tumult 16y ago
  They don't.
  - bmunro 16y ago
    Everything except the VR seems to work in Chromium (daily build). VR requires hardware acceleration.
buster 16y ago
So much for "standard". I wouldn't have expected understanding of "open" from this company, anyway. Yesterday Flash was bad, but today it's fine to write websites that only work in Safari, while using some Apple-specific HTML/CSS-tags.
- buster 16y ago
  It's funny how many comments with the same opinion here get downvoted but no explanations why it's fine to add your own extensions to HTML/CSS (hello good old IE days). At least make your statements when downvoting so many people.
  - niceguy101 16y ago
    Stop the Apple hate , and you wont be downvoted. You guys are not adding anything good to the discussion by criticizing apple.
  - pohl 16y ago
    I think the problem is that your post doesn't read as if you're very well informed. You complain about apple-specific "tags" in a nebulous, hand-wavey manner, and all I can imagine is that you're actually talking about vendor-specific CSS properties. And there's the problem: you're complaining about what you think is a violation of the CSS spec by making a reference to a mechanism and practice that was deliberately baked into it. The authors of the CSS spec specifically accommodated vendor-specific extensions to give browser authors a place to work on supporting emerging abilities that are still in a state of flux. It's a special namespace where features are allowed to incubate. When these relevant standards leave draft status and become 'candidate recommendations', then a simple change will allow browser vendors to support whatever CSS property syntax is approved. When this happens, updating content on the web is an extremely easy change. This mechanism allows browser vendors and spec writers to work concurrently without creating a mess. So, it's kind of funny that you're complaining about this when Apple is actually doing the right thing according to the letter and spirit of the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords Edit to head your next objection off at the pass: Yes, the spec also suggests that "authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions". This is a message to web developers, not browser developers. Apple does not want a web where every CSS file has "-webkit-" properties in it. They want these emerging standards to be ratified so that the vendor-specific properties can graduate to an official, approved syntax.
tumult 16y ago
Some of the demos only work in Safari. Even a nightly Chromium snapshot does not support everything that Safari does. I ran Chromium with my user agent set to Safari. And here's where it gets interesting. The demos that don't work in Chromium, notably the ones that require CSS 3D transforms, get removed from the listings on the pages that have them. So for example, the "Transitions" page, only the Dissolve, Toss, Slide In, Iris and Fade Through effects show up. Unsurprisingly, those are the least technically impressive. The gallery demo in Chromium runs at a fraction of Safari's frame rate. Very choppy. The VR demo gives you an overlay explaining that it's only supported by the iPhone browser, Safari, or another browser with 3D CSS transforms. So I guess their demos actually detect if your browser meets the spec or not, and remove the stuff that doesn't work. I'm guessing this was the original plan -- let everyone in to show off the HTML5 tech. But then someone looked at the nerfed versions without 3D and compositing and said "that's pretty weak, we don't want that to be people's impression" or something.
- noibl 16y ago
  > Some of the demos only work in Safari Which, given other browser-makers' commitment to supporting the emerging specs, just goes to show that 'standards' is a misnomer in this case. In informal usage that's OK; most of us hope that the standardisation of CSS3, HTML5 and related WHATWG initiatives will happen sooner rather than later. But misapplying the term in your marketing material (linked from the front page) is confusing and unhelpful.
  - ellyagg 16y ago
    Uh, what? The vast majority of the time, when people talk about web standards, they mean the W3C recommendations. Suddenly, when Apple uses it in marketing material, it means "recommendations that have been implemented by all browsers"?
    - noibl 16y ago
      Compare: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ 'W3C Working Draft 4 March 2010' http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ 'W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999' So by 'recommendation', am I to assume you're talking about HTML 4.01? (edit: again with the downvotes, no answer...)
ellyagg 16y ago
> This sets a very poor example for Apple supporting standards. Can you, or any of the dozens of upvoters, explain the logic behind that criticism? It literally seems to make no sense to me, so I must be missing something. The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them. It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports. So, huh?
- noibl 16y ago
  > The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them. It doesn't say 'emerging'. It says 'reliable'. > It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports. Except that it doesn't. (a) because the specs are still in draft, and (b) because independent tests show Safari's support to be impressive but nowhere near complete. http://www.freeciv.net/yet-another-html5-browser-test/ http://www.freeciv.net/yet-another-html5-browser-test/
- bradgessler 16y ago
  A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/ http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/): #gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5) { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);} If you accept -webkit CSS extensions as a standard, then Internet Explorer has supported the CSS opacity attribute for years: filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80); These extensions are not part of the CSS3 or HTML5 spec.
  - mikedouglas 16y ago
    Actually, transform is in the CSS3 working spec[0]. Until the standard reaches the "Candidate Recommendation" stage, the W3C encourages browser vendors to use prefixes (-webkit, -moz, etc). DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax. [0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property
ptn 16y ago
From the source code of the page: (navigator.userAgent.match(/Gecko\/(\d{4})/) || [0,2005])[1] < 2005) headers['Connection'] = 'close'
sigzero 16y ago
Or Chrome needs to catch up. It is "ok" on a Mac. For instance, if I see an image on a web page I can right click and copy that image and paste it into Mail....with Safari but not with Chrome.

haydenchambers 16y ago

Has this changed or is it only applicable to desktop? (Works fine from nexus one)

robertmrangel 16y ago

You are either for us or against us.

billpaetzke 16y ago

* Apple might be nudging people to use Safari as their main browser. * Apple might have limited to Safari to keep things simple--to be absolutely sure their demo would work 100%. * I agree that it sucks that their demos are only viewable w/ Safari. But there are plenty of HTML5 demos out there for us :)

bradgessler 16y ago
Its not that it sucks, its that Apple is being misleading about HTML5.
instcode 16y ago
Yes! Why doesn't Apple just let every browser run it and see how superior Safari is in term of HTML5 support? The answer is: Listen up, people! Download our Safari now! Time to ditch your IE, Opera, FF & Chrome!.. Oh, get a life! How mean you always are, Apple!

jpcx01 16y ago

Extremely lame that they check the user agent. They probably all work fine in Chrome since it uses webkit also (I believe Chrome uses a newer version even).

tumult 16y ago
They don't.
- bmunro 16y ago
  Everything except the VR seems to work in Chromium (daily build). VR requires hardware acceleration.

buster 16y ago

So much for "standard". I wouldn't have expected understanding of "open" from this company, anyway. Yesterday Flash was bad, but today it's fine to write websites that only work in Safari, while using some Apple-specific HTML/CSS-tags.

buster 16y ago
It's funny how many comments with the same opinion here get downvoted but no explanations why it's fine to add your own extensions to HTML/CSS (hello good old IE days). At least make your statements when downvoting so many people.
- niceguy101 16y ago
  Stop the Apple hate , and you wont be downvoted. You guys are not adding anything good to the discussion by criticizing apple.
- pohl 16y ago
  I think the problem is that your post doesn't read as if you're very well informed. You complain about apple-specific "tags" in a nebulous, hand-wavey manner, and all I can imagine is that you're actually talking about vendor-specific CSS properties. And there's the problem: you're complaining about what you think is a violation of the CSS spec by making a reference to a mechanism and practice that was deliberately baked into it. The authors of the CSS spec specifically accommodated vendor-specific extensions to give browser authors a place to work on supporting emerging abilities that are still in a state of flux. It's a special namespace where features are allowed to incubate. When these relevant standards leave draft status and become 'candidate recommendations', then a simple change will allow browser vendors to support whatever CSS property syntax is approved. When this happens, updating content on the web is an extremely easy change. This mechanism allows browser vendors and spec writers to work concurrently without creating a mess. So, it's kind of funny that you're complaining about this when Apple is actually doing the right thing according to the letter and spirit of the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords Edit to head your next objection off at the pass: Yes, the spec also suggests that "authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions". This is a message to web developers, not browser developers. Apple does not want a web where every CSS file has "-webkit-" properties in it. They want these emerging standards to be ratified so that the vendor-specific properties can graduate to an official, approved syntax.

tumult 16y ago

Some of the demos only work in Safari. Even a nightly Chromium snapshot does not support everything that Safari does. I ran Chromium with my user agent set to Safari. And here's where it gets interesting. The demos that don't work in Chromium, notably the ones that require CSS 3D transforms, get removed from the listings on the pages that have them. So for example, the "Transitions" page, only the Dissolve, Toss, Slide In, Iris and Fade Through effects show up. Unsurprisingly, those are the least technically impressive. The gallery demo in Chromium runs at a fraction of Safari's frame rate. Very choppy. The VR demo gives you an overlay explaining that it's only supported by the iPhone browser, Safari, or another browser with 3D CSS transforms. So I guess their demos actually detect if your browser meets the spec or not, and remove the stuff that doesn't work. I'm guessing this was the original plan -- let everyone in to show off the HTML5 tech. But then someone looked at the nerfed versions without 3D and compositing and said "that's pretty weak, we don't want that to be people's impression" or something.

noibl 16y ago
> Some of the demos only work in Safari Which, given other browser-makers' commitment to supporting the emerging specs, just goes to show that 'standards' is a misnomer in this case. In informal usage that's OK; most of us hope that the standardisation of CSS3, HTML5 and related WHATWG initiatives will happen sooner rather than later. But misapplying the term in your marketing material (linked from the front page) is confusing and unhelpful.
- ellyagg 16y ago
  Uh, what? The vast majority of the time, when people talk about web standards, they mean the W3C recommendations. Suddenly, when Apple uses it in marketing material, it means "recommendations that have been implemented by all browsers"?
  - noibl 16y ago
    Compare: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ 'W3C Working Draft 4 March 2010' http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ 'W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999' So by 'recommendation', am I to assume you're talking about HTML 4.01? (edit: again with the downvotes, no answer...)

ellyagg 16y ago

> This sets a very poor example for Apple supporting standards. Can you, or any of the dozens of upvoters, explain the logic behind that criticism? It literally seems to make no sense to me, so I must be missing something. The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them. It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports. So, huh?

noibl 16y ago
> The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them. It doesn't say 'emerging'. It says 'reliable'. > It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports. Except that it doesn't. (a) because the specs are still in draft, and (b) because independent tests show Safari's support to be impressive but nowhere near complete. http://www.freeciv.net/yet-another-html5-browser-test/ http://www.freeciv.net/yet-another-html5-browser-test/
bradgessler 16y ago
A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/ http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/): #gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5) { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);} If you accept -webkit CSS extensions as a standard, then Internet Explorer has supported the CSS opacity attribute for years: filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80); These extensions are not part of the CSS3 or HTML5 spec.
- mikedouglas 16y ago
  Actually, transform is in the CSS3 working spec[0]. Until the standard reaches the "Candidate Recommendation" stage, the W3C encourages browser vendors to use prefixes (-webkit, -moz, etc). DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax. [0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property

ptn 16y ago

From the source code of the page: (navigator.userAgent.match(/Gecko\/(\d{4})/) || [0,2005])[1] < 2005) headers['Connection'] = 'close'

sigzero 16y ago

Or Chrome needs to catch up. It is "ok" on a Mac. For instance, if I see an image on a web page I can right click and copy that image and paste it into Mail....with Safari but not with Chrome.