>>.
40 Reader Comments
Isn't Flash already the standard? Or am I missing something?
At any rate, Flash as a format hasn't been decided by anyone except Macromedia/Adobe what have you; at least HTML5 (which I wish was XML, but never mind), CSS3 are being put together by the people that would want to either produce the content or implement renderers. Notably there are many working open implementations of HTML and CSS renders and around 1 proprietary and 0.3 of an open implementation of Flash.
I'm still unhappy that MobileSafari continues to have performance problems as regards SVG and CSS animations.
Edit: Oh, and the weird layering that you get if you embed objects in pages. Again only in MobileSafari, not Safari or WebKit nightlies.
Yeah, it's the de facto standard.
The only way this will be useful is if/when it becomes adopted into the W3C spec. Seeing as Dave Hyatt and Ian Hickson are editors on the HTML5 spec, I can see that there's probably a lot of influential power there to at least get it through the starting gate of the process. I'm only postulating here, but I imagine the problem with this could probably be two-fold:
1. Other browser developers may cry foul over Apple forcing its already-implemented proprietary specs into the official spec. And using its open-source project as leverage for controlling development of the spec.
2. Performance-related items may be "debated out" to make a generic spec that all browser developers can implement. A sort of "decision by consensus" where everyone loses.
I have no idea what is involved with developing a spec such as this, let alone a W3C spec, so I'm only left to imagine these as potential problems. That said, I'd love to see these put into some version of the CSS spec.
Ah, I haven't been keeping up with Flash for several years now.
But, the sample animations shown in this post only required the addition of some CSS... not a whole other authoring environment + skill set. So I still think the advantage goes to the CSS Transforms. But Apple needs to unleash them on the desktop so we can really see where devs can take it. It's already pretty impressive to me on MobileSafari.
Agreed, but Canvas was originally developed at Apple to enable complex graphics for Dashboard widgets... now it's part of the HTML5 spec. I don't think there is any inherently anti-Apple sentiment among those the develop/approve the spec. As long as it's well though out and the reference implementation can properly show off it's advantages, I think any technology has a chance. I believe that is the case here with Apple's 3D CSS Transforms.
If you mean Microsoft/IE then don't sweat it. They'll just completely ignore it like so many other things, and it won't matter a whit, being immune to market forces and all.
All the better if they give away technologies like this so that all benefit as long as they support W3C standards. The Web can only benefit.
It needs to be removed from the web.
It should also be noted that the WebKit team has a published spec that, while not guaranteed to be finalized, is currently implemented in WebKit and enabled in MobileSafari. Apple encourages those making web apps to be deployed for the iPhone to use these CSS Transforms to enable native-like effects.
As pohl stated, other browser makers could implement support for these transforms based on the current spec. If it proved popular, it could be adopted as part of the official CSS spec.
I agree, but the majority of video embedding uses Flash-based video streaming. Hopefully HTML5 can change this.
However, as Zich stated, he has the samples posted online if you'd like to view them. Personally I think they are a lot more impressive when view on the iPhone than in the videos I made.
Particularly, I used the CardFlip and PosterCircle examples:
Personally, though, I find even *more* ironic that you can view these examples natively on an iPhone but *not* on the desktop.
CSS is standard.
Apple is extended CSS by adding animations and 3D graphics.
Apple will then offer these for certification so that it is open standard.
HTML 5.0 and CSS animations and 3D graphics absolutely will kill Flash.
These open standards can be used by anyone for free.
Except that there is now a near-complete (barring old but still important video codecs) open specification for Flash without any restrictions on what you may or may not implement. The analogy isn't quite right. As a format, Flash is no longer proprietary. However, the only serious attempt to implement it outside of the closed source Adobe client is Gnash which remains severely lacking.
Not that any of this really matters. HTML&CSS is preferable to Flash for many reasons.
But maybe, typically how I have observed these things to work, this will happen - some 5 years down the line - and will be hailed as the 'next innovation'. I continue to remain clueless as to why no one just gets it right now!
The 3D stuff is interesting and wouldn't mind seeing it go in. At the same time, I don't care for it. Flash is already distracting in most sites. We don't need a standard way of throwing crap all over the site and it wouldn't be confined to little boxes like it does in flash. It would also be harder to detect ads from content.
These things are debated. Apple cannot force anything on the W3C. Submitted technology is debated by many people who decide if it is the best way to go. This process takes a long time.
I never said WebKit is proprietary. I said the CSS extensions themselves are proprietary, which they currently are. None of WebKit is a "specification" -- the rendering engine portion of WebKit is an implementation of a set of specifications laid out by W3C that's open to anyone to create their own implementation from. It's what Mozilla does with Gecko, Opera does with Presto, and Microsoft does with Trident.
My point was specific to the topic at hand -- I never said they *are* forcing their will on the specification, I was simply pointing out a conflict of interest that *may* have arisen. This given that Dave Hyatt is working on the HTML5 spec (which, of course, is not the CSS3 spec).
In the back of my mind I was referencing what foresmac108 stated regarding Canvas. When Canvas was introduced, Ian Hickson, took exception with the extensions to HTML without properly notifying the standards body for discussion. However, that wasn't so much to do with the proprietary nature of these, so much as namespace choices.
And, as foresmac108 aptly points out, the web community has definitely softened and embraced WebKit into the community. And, in reality, I find that this will likely go through -- if it is brought to the w3c -- much the same, if not easier than, the Canvas additions did. I mean, these are very well documented.
I was simply trying to make the point that I hope it does, and hope it does so smoothly and in a way that's most beneficial to all involved, while not losing any advantages of this technology. If my verbiage doesn't relay that, then I apologise.
HTML 5 and related Web 2 technologies are neither ad hoc nor interim. They embody an advancement on and continuation of the 20 year long history of the HTML spec, the core technology of the WWW. HTML 5 is a work in progress and remains open to submissions such as the one this article refers to.
I would say these CSS extensions are proprietary in the sense that Apple is developing them. But we all know Apple is developing them with the full intent of making them apart of the open spec.
The declarative animation stuff is also a lot better than mucking around in Javascript, but only Safari supports it so it is less useful right now.
Bad cubicle monkey,bad! (/me slaps own hand)
This leaves Javascript to actual data-processing, and creating elements, rather than having to do heavy-lifting manipulating them, which is ideal I think, for more complex set-ups you would then be able to use javascript to create 'ticks' as required, or customise rules as needed.
You must login or create an account to comment.