Dude, H.264 is proprietary, and that's what Apple want as part of the HTML5 specs. Also, it's what the Youtube et al HTML5 betas are running.
Wow you know so much....."H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a standard for video compression. The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.".... Dick
Which means no hulu.com, espn360.com or fancast.com. Somehow Mr. Jobs is touting this as a feature.
Yawn, Flash *IS* dying, the future is NOT flash, it's javascript HTML5 canvas. So yes I think Mr Jobs, Mr Youtube, Mr Vimeo, Mr Google, Mr Firefox..... are right on the money. No problem here please move along.
Not true at all. Javascript engines are getting faster, a lot of effort, time and money is being put into making that so. Googles V8 engine for example. Also paired with the fact that HTML5 introduces a notion of concurrency into Javascript this is then even less of an issue.
~Unfortunately most people still think circa 1998 when talking about Javascript. Wrong. Javascript is key to the future of the web and not heavy inefficient server side solutions.
Have a look at say node.js and see if you still think about Javascript circa 1998
because it must be hard enough to find every book that you would like to read. That everyone should be entitled to do so. Without these fucking self elected profiteers/guardians giving you an even harder time.
No?
Well this will just come back to haunt them. Google has wisely realised that you don't pick on disabilities, it makes you look, bad, like a bully.
At the end of the day if I understand correctly, this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind, it's not about the blind stealing their precious content.
These guys better wise up the world is changing around them.
Perhaps as individuals it's time we boycotted and voted with our choices.
Horrible.
you're right... but. your missing the point. the important, ground breaking changes are not the tags or even for that matter the video elemen, these are all distractions. It's the other stuff like. WebWorkers, webSockets, ApplicationCache etc... This is the important stuff.
Really go read the specs
Re:Google hates anything that is offline
on
Google Abandoning Gears
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Really? you don't think that if you have a client side DB that is network aware, that can sync when it reconnects that it can't
a) inject ads
b) record what you do
c) sync all of the above when you re-connect?
I'm sorry but get prepared for offline analytics and ads
It's got nothing to do with "tags", the whole point of the HTML5 API is to try and evolve the request -> response model we have at the moment. for example, WebSockets http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ event based full duplex communications. Or that you can now actually store files locally (applicationCache), so for example client side templates would be possible, only send the data that changes, not as happens now, everything over, and over again.
The new tags in HTML5 are not the important bits.
I'm betting we'll see browsers at some point not being able disable javascript entirely.
I dare you to dissable JS for a day, see how you actually get on. here's an example:
"There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead."
Pfff! Javascrip tis such a hassle eh?
what! doesn't anyone actually think things through before opening their mouths anymore? Everything you'd tried to apply some whale meme anaolgy to is wrong.
Developers need to get this into their heads:
1. the days of request -> response -> request are going
2. more load is going to be placed of client resources.
3. Data should be stateless, your client will retain state
HTML5 improves efficiency, removes latency. So why is that a bad thing? WebWorkers, WebSockets??? No?
Then go and read the specs before to dismiss them off hand.
What non-trivial like gMail, or what let me see about every other site you visit?
You do know that javascript is a prototypical language? So you have treat it differently. Classical inheritance is not the way to do things.
Namespaces?? What are you on about. I've been using NS in javascript for years!
"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely"
Really? no more facebook, twitter, etc, ect.. for you then.
So you'd do everything server side eh? where it belongs? I don't think you have thought about that have you.
Go on think about what you have just said, really think about the implications.
Or perhaps you actually think the web is about as efficient as it can get, everything on the server.
"CPU-intensive computations" + "lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support"
What like concurrency via WebWorkers?
"no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries"
What like this:http://processingjs.org/
"Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90% of mission-critical applications"
I'd hardly call it experimental after what 14-15 years. After all JAVA was designed for friggin fridges!
So what you are trying to say is.....
"I HAVE NO CLUE".
I find the nagative, un-informed, comments revealing. It reveals most of are unaware of current developments and about a decade out of step with modern techniques.
Please all of you, do yourselvs a favour and actually get a clue before responding with general idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's time you read some specs and educated yourself then.
Dude, H.264 is proprietary, and that's what Apple want as part of the HTML5 specs. Also, it's what the Youtube et al HTML5 betas are running.
Wow you know so much....."H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a standard for video compression. The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.".... Dick
Which means no hulu.com, espn360.com or fancast.com. Somehow Mr. Jobs is touting this as a feature.
Yawn, Flash *IS* dying, the future is NOT flash, it's javascript HTML5 canvas. So yes I think Mr Jobs, Mr Youtube, Mr Vimeo, Mr Google, Mr Firefox..... are right on the money. No problem here please move along.
Umm because IE is shit, lagging about 3 years behind the rest. They STILL have not managed to produce a *fully* standards compliant browser.
that's why we invented WebWorkers: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/
Not true at all. Javascript engines are getting faster, a lot of effort, time and money is being put into making that so. Googles V8 engine for example. Also paired with the fact that HTML5 introduces a notion of concurrency into Javascript this is then even less of an issue. ~Unfortunately most people still think circa 1998 when talking about Javascript. Wrong. Javascript is key to the future of the web and not heavy inefficient server side solutions. Have a look at say node.js and see if you still think about Javascript circa 1998
because it must be hard enough to find every book that you would like to read. That everyone should be entitled to do so. Without these fucking self elected profiteers/guardians giving you an even harder time. No?
Well this will just come back to haunt them. Google has wisely realised that you don't pick on disabilities, it makes you look, bad, like a bully. At the end of the day if I understand correctly, this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind, it's not about the blind stealing their precious content. These guys better wise up the world is changing around them. Perhaps as individuals it's time we boycotted and voted with our choices. Horrible.
??? things do "evolve", so I don't get your point. So how else should we do it?
mod +1 parent! :)
you're right... but. your missing the point. the important, ground breaking changes are not the tags or even for that matter the video elemen, these are all distractions. It's the other stuff like. WebWorkers, webSockets, ApplicationCache etc... This is the important stuff. Really go read the specs
Really? you don't think that if you have a client side DB that is network aware, that can sync when it reconnects that it can't a) inject ads b) record what you do c) sync all of the above when you re-connect? I'm sorry but get prepared for offline analytics and ads
It's got nothing to do with "tags", the whole point of the HTML5 API is to try and evolve the request -> response model we have at the moment. for example, WebSockets http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ event based full duplex communications. Or that you can now actually store files locally (applicationCache), so for example client side templates would be possible, only send the data that changes, not as happens now, everything over, and over again. The new tags in HTML5 are not the important bits.
I'm betting we'll see browsers at some point not being able disable javascript entirely. I dare you to dissable JS for a day, see how you actually get on. here's an example: "There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead." Pfff! Javascrip tis such a hassle eh?
what! doesn't anyone actually think things through before opening their mouths anymore? Everything you'd tried to apply some whale meme anaolgy to is wrong. Developers need to get this into their heads: 1. the days of request -> response -> request are going 2. more load is going to be placed of client resources. 3. Data should be stateless, your client will retain state HTML5 improves efficiency, removes latency. So why is that a bad thing? WebWorkers, WebSockets??? No? Then go and read the specs before to dismiss them off hand.
from actually working with this stuff. Quite alot already.
so you'll be aware of this then: http://nodejs.org/
What non-trivial like gMail, or what let me see about every other site you visit? You do know that javascript is a prototypical language? So you have treat it differently. Classical inheritance is not the way to do things. Namespaces?? What are you on about. I've been using NS in javascript for years!
"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely" Really? no more facebook, twitter, etc, ect.. for you then. So you'd do everything server side eh? where it belongs? I don't think you have thought about that have you. Go on think about what you have just said, really think about the implications. Or perhaps you actually think the web is about as efficient as it can get, everything on the server.
"CPU-intensive computations" + "lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support" What like concurrency via WebWorkers? "no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries" What like this :http://processingjs.org/
"Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90% of mission-critical applications"
I'd hardly call it experimental after what 14-15 years. After all JAVA was designed for friggin fridges!
So what you are trying to say is.....
"I HAVE NO CLUE".
I find the nagative, un-informed, comments revealing. It reveals most of are unaware of current developments and about a decade out of step with modern techniques. Please all of you, do yourselvs a favour and actually get a clue before responding with general idiocy.