4 ms·

Remember when people chastised Microsoft for doing similar things (using IE-specific HTML/CSS for parts of an application interface)? I guess Apple have the web

by btn 17y ago

Remember when people chastised Microsoft for doing similar things (using IE-specific HTML/CSS for parts of an application interface)? I guess Apple have the web standards street cred to get away with it. (I know it's not entirely the same, but... just sayin'...)

martey 17y ago
I think this is entirely different. Apple is using CSS3 to generate compliant HTML files for their application interface (see the link to Will Norris' post, which includes a link to a HTML file you can view in any browser). I think this is interesting not simply because Apple moved the iTunes Music Store interface from proprietary XML to HTML, but because this might allow for (unauthorized) third party iTMS interfaces, similar to pymusique/SharpMusique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpMusique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpMusique
- btn 17y ago
  using CSS3 to generate compliant HTML files A significant chunk of the CSS is vendor-specific. Similarly, the HTML contains Apple-only attributes and segments designed to only be interpreted by iTunes. Neither the HTML nor CSS is "compliant" (ie. validating). to a HTML file you can view in any browser Except it's completely broken in anything but WebKit-based browsers, and isn't functional outside of iTunes. They've moved from proprietary XML to proprietary HTML. This doesn't open up any new doors for third-parties; it's just a convenience for the people at Apple to design new content for the store.
  - tewks 17y ago
    This design choice is significant because most of these properties, or their equivalents, will be or are already implemented in several CSS3 rendering engines: it's a great demonstration of what we will soon be able to do with cross-browser support. The fact that IE or browser x can't browse the iTunes store is less important than some other tactics on Apple's part such as lack of non Apple device support...
  - rimantas 17y ago
    They are using http://www.apple.com/itms/ http://www.apple.com/itms/ namespace, not the w3c one. It does not make much sense for XHTML1.1, but trying to validate their markup is not making any more sense either.
Quarrelsome 17y ago
I personally think its an utter joke that you need a client side app to view the ITunes website. That isn't how the internet is supposed to work. If M$ did that there would be hell to pay, but Apple is "cool" so it's just FINE, apparently.
- rimantas 17y ago
  That's exactly how internet is supposed to work. Or did you mean www? That is not the same.
  - Quarrelsome 17y ago
    We're talking about a friend passing you a link that leads to page that redirects you to download some software to view that page. At the level of "consumer goods" the technical pedantry of www. being on the address can hang. Even AllOfMp3 had a web AND client side application to view their store.
    - pohl 17y ago
      This is certainly not the first time in history that a non-browser application has embedded a browser rendering engine for its own purposes. If you have ever used a kiosk, you've probably seen it yourself. In fact, I believe the Outlook mail client uses Trident for HTML email. This is also not the first time in history that a vendor has used the human practice of exchanging URLs to promote downloads of special client software. Flash rose to dominance based upon people sharing links to amusing cartoons with each other, for example. Microsoft heavily promotes Silverlight URLs, and there has been no "hell to pay". Nor is this the first time in history that a special URL scheme or content type was used to launch an external application. In fact, this has been a browser feature from the dawn of time.
      - Quarrelsome 17y ago
        Flash plugs into my browser (and I can choose my browser) as does Silverlight. ITunes does not, it is a completely different application. Basically the joke still stands. In 2009 the largest online supplier of music does not have their catalogue on the world wide web.
pohl 17y ago
CSS was designed for vendor extension. This is why browsers are supposed to ignore selectors they do not understand. Mozilla and Opera use this too. What you are comparing this to is different: a browser that does the wrong thing with a standardized selector. And, of course, HTML violations are in a different class, as it does not have extensibility built into the spec like CSS has.
- pohl 17y ago
  I wanted to correct my bad use of CSS terminology above. I should have used "property"|"properties" where I said "selector"|"selectors".
yardie 17y ago
Nothing wrong with that. Just don't call it HTML if you do. Microsoft was chastised for taking a good standard, and extending/changing the standard so if you wrote HTML for IE it was seriously broken on any other browser. Apple doesn't write it's HTML for you or anyone else's browser. Their markup is specific to iTunes and should be viewed as such.

by btn 17y ago

martey 17y ago

I think this is entirely different. Apple is using CSS3 to generate compliant HTML files for their application interface (see the link to Will Norris' post, which includes a link to a HTML file you can view in any browser). I think this is interesting not simply because Apple moved the iTunes Music Store interface from proprietary XML to HTML, but because this might allow for (unauthorized) third party iTMS interfaces, similar to pymusique/SharpMusique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpMusique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpMusique

btn 17y ago
using CSS3 to generate compliant HTML files A significant chunk of the CSS is vendor-specific. Similarly, the HTML contains Apple-only attributes and segments designed to only be interpreted by iTunes. Neither the HTML nor CSS is "compliant" (ie. validating). to a HTML file you can view in any browser Except it's completely broken in anything but WebKit-based browsers, and isn't functional outside of iTunes. They've moved from proprietary XML to proprietary HTML. This doesn't open up any new doors for third-parties; it's just a convenience for the people at Apple to design new content for the store.
- tewks 17y ago
  This design choice is significant because most of these properties, or their equivalents, will be or are already implemented in several CSS3 rendering engines: it's a great demonstration of what we will soon be able to do with cross-browser support. The fact that IE or browser x can't browse the iTunes store is less important than some other tactics on Apple's part such as lack of non Apple device support...
- rimantas 17y ago
  They are using http://www.apple.com/itms/ http://www.apple.com/itms/ namespace, not the w3c one. It does not make much sense for XHTML1.1, but trying to validate their markup is not making any more sense either.

Quarrelsome 17y ago

I personally think its an utter joke that you need a client side app to view the ITunes website. That isn't how the internet is supposed to work. If M$ did that there would be hell to pay, but Apple is "cool" so it's just FINE, apparently.

rimantas 17y ago
That's exactly how internet is supposed to work. Or did you mean www? That is not the same.
- Quarrelsome 17y ago
  We're talking about a friend passing you a link that leads to page that redirects you to download some software to view that page. At the level of "consumer goods" the technical pedantry of www. being on the address can hang. Even AllOfMp3 had a web AND client side application to view their store.
  - pohl 17y ago
    This is certainly not the first time in history that a non-browser application has embedded a browser rendering engine for its own purposes. If you have ever used a kiosk, you've probably seen it yourself. In fact, I believe the Outlook mail client uses Trident for HTML email. This is also not the first time in history that a vendor has used the human practice of exchanging URLs to promote downloads of special client software. Flash rose to dominance based upon people sharing links to amusing cartoons with each other, for example. Microsoft heavily promotes Silverlight URLs, and there has been no "hell to pay". Nor is this the first time in history that a special URL scheme or content type was used to launch an external application. In fact, this has been a browser feature from the dawn of time.
    - Quarrelsome 17y ago
      Flash plugs into my browser (and I can choose my browser) as does Silverlight. ITunes does not, it is a completely different application. Basically the joke still stands. In 2009 the largest online supplier of music does not have their catalogue on the world wide web.

pohl 17y ago

CSS was designed for vendor extension. This is why browsers are supposed to ignore selectors they do not understand. Mozilla and Opera use this too. What you are comparing this to is different: a browser that does the wrong thing with a standardized selector. And, of course, HTML violations are in a different class, as it does not have extensibility built into the spec like CSS has.

pohl 17y ago
I wanted to correct my bad use of CSS terminology above. I should have used "property"|"properties" where I said "selector"|"selectors".

yardie 17y ago

Nothing wrong with that. Just don't call it HTML if you do. Microsoft was chastised for taking a good standard, and extending/changing the standard so if you wrote HTML for IE it was seriously broken on any other browser. Apple doesn't write it's HTML for you or anyone else's browser. Their markup is specific to iTunes and should be viewed as such.