5 ms·

It is clear to me that this is a Google Chrome Experiment, from their labs, and that they did not had any intention of it working on any other browser but i got

by mrpollo 15y ago

It is clear to me that this is a Google Chrome Experiment, from their labs, and that they did not had any intention of it working on any other browser but i got curious... i was doing some research on it and they appear to be using sync xhr calls which causes FF to hiccup even after all this time. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383304 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383304 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313646 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313646 they are marked as resolved but i just confirmed the xhr sync calls dont work in some cases. google is using the sync calls here http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/API.js http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/API.js Here you can try this to try and play the video on FF https://gist.github.com/1109890 https://gist.github.com/1109890 you will notice your console throws some errors around line 42 of that file, if anyone knows what else is wrong here please let me know.

angryasian 15y ago
this article is written with the obvious intention of bashing google, the writer didn't even do his research because honeycomb 3.2 source is available.
- tsuraan 15y ago
  Where? http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ just says 2.3 is available, and google isn't turning up anything either. EDIT: looks like the GPL/LGPL parts have been released (according to news reports, anyhow). Can you point me to a full buildable android 3.2 repo?
  - darshan 15y ago
    Only the GPL/LGPL parts are available, but the Honeycomb code isn't viewed as ready for public consumption yet. My guess is that we'll finally see the code when Ice Cream Sandwich rolls out.
    - jackolas 15y ago
      Some openness. Waiting for corporations to deem it fit for public scrutiny but not public usage? Makes me suspicious if they released all the GPL'd parts or if they missed some.
    - starwed 15y ago
      Sure, but that was exactly what the author meant.
- mrpollo 15y ago
  "this article is written with the obvious intention of bashing google" i agree, it is way faster to develop for just 1 browser, plus we should be celebrating people are trying to break ground doing this awesome videos, i can only begin to imagine all the impressive work that what went into this video, good one google +1
  - bonch 15y ago
    I thought the point of open standards was that you didn't develop for just one browser. Google loves to trumpet its openness a lot, so forgive me for being confused by their motives.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    I hope this was sarcastic, unfortunately I fear you're actually serious. Scary.
    - mrpollo 15y ago
      out of curiosity why?
- Toady 15y ago
  Oh, okay, so that makes it okay for the site to be Chrome-only despite Google's constant proselytizing over "openness."
pornel 15y ago
That would explain blocking of Firefox, but they're blocking Safari and WebKit nightly and... everything else that doesn't have "Chrome" in User-Agent string: http://yfrog.com/z/kh1rylsqj http://yfrog.com/z/kh1rylsqj
- mrpollo 15y ago
  i just tried accessing the app with Safari and it came to my attention that its trying to load mp4 and mp3 files instead of the webm videos http://yfrog.com/h7x8xup http://yfrog.com/h7x8xup then i got even more curious and found this file http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/VideoList.js http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/VideoList.js look around line 236 this.src = src.replace(/(\.webm+)$/, (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Chrome/') == -1 && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE') != -1 || navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Safari/') != -1)) ? '.mp4' : '.webm'); but looks like they didn't upload any mp4 files :( sad
  - pornel 15y ago
    None of this '90s-style sniffing is necessary: HTML5 supports multiple <source> elements allowing browser to choose and has canPlayType('video/webm') for JavaScript.
khuey 15y ago
Huh? Where do you see a sync XHR in there?
- mrpollo 15y ago
  there is none, my mistake
ootachi 15y ago
Er... there is no synchronous XHR in the snippet you pasted. All calls to open() pass true for the third parameter.
- mrpollo 15y ago
  You are right, the error i get on my console isn't related to that, i misunderstood the error i get, i tried replicating today and the xhr request goes trough ok, http://yfrog.com/gysa24p http://yfrog.com/gysa24p makes me wonder what was my original problem, ill try to stop commenting by impulse.

by mrpollo 15y ago

angryasian 15y ago

this article is written with the obvious intention of bashing google, the writer didn't even do his research because honeycomb 3.2 source is available.

tsuraan 15y ago
Where? http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ just says 2.3 is available, and google isn't turning up anything either. EDIT: looks like the GPL/LGPL parts have been released (according to news reports, anyhow). Can you point me to a full buildable android 3.2 repo?
- darshan 15y ago
  Only the GPL/LGPL parts are available, but the Honeycomb code isn't viewed as ready for public consumption yet. My guess is that we'll finally see the code when Ice Cream Sandwich rolls out.
  - jackolas 15y ago
    Some openness. Waiting for corporations to deem it fit for public scrutiny but not public usage? Makes me suspicious if they released all the GPL'd parts or if they missed some.
  - starwed 15y ago
    Sure, but that was exactly what the author meant.
mrpollo 15y ago
"this article is written with the obvious intention of bashing google" i agree, it is way faster to develop for just 1 browser, plus we should be celebrating people are trying to break ground doing this awesome videos, i can only begin to imagine all the impressive work that what went into this video, good one google +1
- bonch 15y ago
  I thought the point of open standards was that you didn't develop for just one browser. Google loves to trumpet its openness a lot, so forgive me for being confused by their motives.
- zobzu 15y ago
  I hope this was sarcastic, unfortunately I fear you're actually serious. Scary.
  - mrpollo 15y ago
    out of curiosity why?
Toady 15y ago
Oh, okay, so that makes it okay for the site to be Chrome-only despite Google's constant proselytizing over "openness."

pornel 15y ago

That would explain blocking of Firefox, but they're blocking Safari and WebKit nightly and... everything else that doesn't have "Chrome" in User-Agent string: http://yfrog.com/z/kh1rylsqj http://yfrog.com/z/kh1rylsqj

mrpollo 15y ago
i just tried accessing the app with Safari and it came to my attention that its trying to load mp4 and mp3 files instead of the webm videos http://yfrog.com/h7x8xup http://yfrog.com/h7x8xup then i got even more curious and found this file http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/VideoList.js http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/VideoList.js look around line 236 this.src = src.replace(/(\.webm+)$/, (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Chrome/') == -1 && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE') != -1 || navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Safari/') != -1)) ? '.mp4' : '.webm'); but looks like they didn't upload any mp4 files :( sad
- pornel 15y ago
  None of this '90s-style sniffing is necessary: HTML5 supports multiple <source> elements allowing browser to choose and has canPlayType('video/webm') for JavaScript.

khuey 15y ago

Huh? Where do you see a sync XHR in there?

mrpollo 15y ago
there is none, my mistake

ootachi 15y ago

Er... there is no synchronous XHR in the snippet you pasted. All calls to open() pass true for the third parameter.

mrpollo 15y ago
You are right, the error i get on my console isn't related to that, i misunderstood the error i get, i tried replicating today and the xhr request goes trough ok, http://yfrog.com/gysa24p http://yfrog.com/gysa24p makes me wonder what was my original problem, ill try to stop commenting by impulse.