5 ms·

I think that years ago the technology wasn't ready to do what they wanted it to do.

• Yaggo 16y ago
  If you look at scripd's source code, you cannot really call it "HTML5". It's the same old nested DIVs with absolute positioning and class names such as "only_ie6_border". Plus some CSS3 eye candy. Hard to see why it couldn't have been implemented years ago.
  • teej 16y ago
    But that doesn't make a catchy press release.
  • amock 16y ago
    It's not just about HTML5, it's about browser support and speed for the features they use. Browser performance has increased dramatically in the past few years and many people have upgraded to browsers with much better standards support. They still have some hacks, but they can also take advantage of HTML5 when it's available like they do with @font-face.
• axod 16y ago
  Google managed. (They've been displaying pdf's using HTML for ages now). I know it's cool to hype up everything as HTML5 now, like it's something totally new and completely different to anything that went before, but it's not. It's just some extra features that make a few things easier.
  • earl 16y ago
    Sadly... no. G has been displaying pdfs as rasterized images. Not at all the same thing.
    • deno 16y ago
      They've been displaying pdfs as text for some time but it was very ugly — just enough to quickly see what's inside. “Quick preview” is new feature. They render pdfs but have raw text too for convenient copy/paste. Google's reader should be much more light and perform faster, esp. in old browsers with slow DOM implementation. The disadvantage of this solution is non-native (for client) text rendering. Also things like embedded video and scripting would not work, but I think Scribd is not supporting those either. So, not at all the same thing. Whoever downvoted you have some explaining to do.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • axod 16y ago
      No user cares or even knows that it's an image vs something else. As long as you can select the text etc it's exactly the same.