
HTML5Wow - sr3d
http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide1
======
primigenus
What's with the negativity in here? This is a slide deck that was used by
speakers at Google IO in 2011 to present a session about HTML5. They figured
it may be useful so they shared it online so attendees and people who couldn't
make it could see and play with the slides afterwards. It makes no sense to
criticize these slides for not working in Firefox, Opera, on mobiles, or any
other use case for which they were not developed. It's a slide deck. Be glad
these guys felt like sharing their knowledge with you.

~~~
mediumdeviation
It's a set of slides about HTML5 written in HTML5. The slides not working
properly on mobile devices with no fallback for non-webkit browsers show that
the developers are either

a. Lazy b. Incompetent, or c. Used proprietary webkit technology,

none of which will inspire much confidence in the actual contents of slides
(which I can't read anyway, since I'm on Opera Mobile)

~~~
albertzeyer
What is proprietary webkit technology?

~~~
josteink
The ones which doesn't work in other standard-compliant browsers, like
Firefox.

------
Zash

        You are running a Mozilla browser. [...], this presentation has only been tested using WebKit browsers such as Google Chrome or Safari.
    

_sigh_ Didn't people learn when it was "This has only been tested with
Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0" ?

~~~
indubitably
Seriously. Google is doing what it can to snuff out Firefox.

~~~
AshleysBrain
Such as funding them with millions of dollars for their default search engine
deal?

~~~
indubitably
And then regularly threatening to remove that funding as they developed
competing technology.

Google is not Mozilla's friend.

~~~
magicalist
Huh? Google is not doing charity by paying Mozilla, the GP is off base there;
they have a _contract_ with Mozilla for getting to be the default search
provider. There's nothing to threaten with. But maybe you're privy to some
secret contract negotiations the rest of the world isn't?

Besides, there's a reason Google pays so much for that slot: there are others
willing to pay a lot for it as well, and even more competitors if Mozilla is
willing to take a smaller payment for it.

------
zobzu
That's such sites which tip you as why HTML5 is not the synonymous of "proper,
standard HTML implementation" anymore.

"You are running a Mozilla browser. While such browsers generally have
excellent support for HTML5 features, this presentation has only been tested
using WebKit browsers"

Exactly. What you mean here is webkit-HTML.

A big part of HTML5 is "we're saying this is going to be an HTML5 API and
thats it".

For example, Firefox and Chrome have different Audio APIs. How that's
standard?

~~~
magicalist
No, what you have here is a _slide deck_ about standard or standards-track
features that includes features that don't all work cross-browser yet, and may
change significantly before they do. When people respond like this to slide
decks, I always wonder what they would have preferred? A video of the
presentation, but no live version? Screenshots of the working draft text of
the spec?

This is a slide deck for developers. It explicitly says what browser it
currently works in and where it might break. Developers usually have more than
one browser installed, which makes this not that big of a deal. It does
highlight explicitly, however, that developers will then have a choice to make
if _they_ want to use those features and want them to work cross browser. They
will either have to work to implement (or find an existing) cross-browser
polyfill, or they will just have to be patient while the feature is specced
and implementations deploy.

There _is_ tension here, admittedly, because eager developers will always push
new features that aren't available universally yet, because it allows them to
do something new. This is why, for instance, in some cases Mozilla has moved
away from vendor prefixing to instead exposing some proposed features in only
alpha and beta builds, so that developers won't be tempted to use them in
production (which means breaking changes in a spec will break already deployed
websites) until the spec is settled. This hopefully will be picked up by other
browser vendors (though, again, only for some features). I know some Chrome
developers have been very receptive to this approach.

In the meantime, it's good to educate yourself (as a developer) and others
about what is coming, especially because while something is still coming (and
not here yet) you can still go join a w3c/whatwg mailing list and give
feedback.

For instance, you could start with your Audio APIs question by looking to the
Audio Working Group:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/>

<http://www.w3.org/TR/webaudio/>

~~~
zobzu
No. It doesn't fly. Have you ever wondered _why_ there were standards, and why
a standard is _called_ a standard?

According to this, "HTML5" is made for various specs to _compete_. Except,
HTML is a standard. HTML5 is an upcoming standard (or so does it claims to
be).

If everyone includes APIs in their _production_ browsers (in case you haven't
noticed, most of the various features are actually in production browsers,
despite what you wrote) that are incompatible, that's no standard, and there
will _never_ be a standard, no matter how you put it, as there will _always_
be a never ending competition for the "new APIs". NEVER ENDING.

So, if vendors start implementing API that they don't call HTML(5), but just
their own, well guess what? That's "webkit-HTML", and it happens to be exactly
how I dubbed it.

So no. HTML5 is not wow, and yes, that site, like many others, is webkit-only,
on production webkit browsers. That's un-defendable.

~~~
magicalist
I'm not sure I understand the bad part you're objecting to.

Is it that webkit is implementing different parts of "HTML5" and related specs
that haven't been finalized than other browsers? All the browsers do this, and
it's a good thing. Not only are independent implementations _required_ for w3c
specs to even become finalized, it's also widely accepted that implementations
of features (prefixed and possibly guarded by runtime flags or confined to
non-stable versions of a browser) are often the strongest case you can make
for adding something to a spec in the first place. This is a difficult
tightrope to walk, as you can easily go too far out ahead of a working group,
but it has served us pretty well in the last few years.

Or is it that this slide deck is using non-standard features to give a preview
of what the standards working groups are working on? Here's a not very
hypothetical hypothetical: if you were giving a talk on upcoming Javascript
features in es6, and you wanted to talk about the yield keyword, a great way
to show it in action is to add a 'type="application/javascript;version=1.8"'
to your script tag, which allows the use of yield today in shipping Firefox
browsers[1].

To be sure, you're not recommending that developers go out and build their
apps around this right now, because it only works in one browser (maybe two if
v8 has added yield behind their "Enable Experimental JavaScript", I'm not
sure). But showing it in action is a powerful education tool.

Now, if you wanted to publish your slide deck afterwards, what would you do? A
pdf of your slides is pretty lame, at least on its own. It was interactive
during the presentation, there's no reason it shouldn't be interactive when
playing with it online, but you'd have to warn that it only works in Firefox.
You could add that static pdf version as well, but the code is already right
there in the page, and this is a developer audience, so they almost certainly
have Firefox installed no matter what browser they use for day-to-day
browsing.

It's really not that big of a deal. Save the anger for actual attacks on the
web.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/JavaScript/New_in_J...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/1.8)

~~~
zobzu
I don't see any anger in my comments, simply disappointment. Let me explain it
a last time in a very simple manner:

I'm no developer and I must use Chrome to see this website properly, and it's
far from the only website with that issue. In fact, even if I was a developer,
I should be able to view any site that's designed for production browsers
properly, with any browser, as long as they're not buggy.

So, there's a standardization problem. You can keep trying to defend it and
how it's all made in good faith - it might even be - but the end result is
unfortunately, the same.

------
brianwillis
If you used this many gratuitous visual effects in a Power Point presentation
I'd think you were an idiot with no sense of taste, but because it's being
rendered in a web browser I think this is impressive for some reason.

~~~
ryanbraganza
Personally, I think a lot of it is impressive, but the cube animation gets old
really fast.

------
ergo14
A HTML5 presentation that works only in Webkit. No thanks, I am not
interested.

Web and HTML5 is about standards, and my life would be easier if IE would not
do the things it did in past, now I'm seeing the same from Webkit.

~~~
vrdabomb5717
It only seems to work on Chrome right now. Safari doesn't support the
FileSystem API, so it doesn't seem like even Webkit's enough.

~~~
chipsy
I'm pretty sure some of it is broken in all browsers now because the specs for
these APIs have all changed.

------
hayksaakian
Nope

<http://www.imgur.com/B19Rk.png>

No right arrow key means that even if I can use 2/4 of those html5 features, i
can't use your presentation.

~~~
hayksaakian
And on my netbook, I don't even see the arrow prompt because the page is too
large by default. I have to zoom out.

<http://imgur.com/CxOVj>

------
md224
I think everyone should keep in mind that this presentation was (seemingly)
created in 2011, so a couple things might be out of date (e.g. BlobBuilder is
now deprecated).

------
Tloewald
Apparently to experience the wow i need to hit a cursor key.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Everything looks great, other than the fact I'm still forced to use a broken
language to interact with shiny new APIs:

<https://gist.github.com/4471029>

Then you want me to manipulate binary data with an array implementation _this
crappy_?

~~~
shimms
So it uses lexicographic sort by default, just pass a custom comparator no?

<https://gist.github.com/4471254>

~~~
md224
or if he doesn't even feel like passing a custom comparator every time and
just wants to default to increasing numerical order:

(function(){var a=function(a,b){return
a>b},b=Array.prototype.sort;Array.prototype.sort=function(){return
b.call(this,a)}})();

------
debacle
Google is doing the Internet no favors in trying to out-douche Microsoft in
the web browser arena.

------
acron0
I am on the verge of breaking ground on a large-scale corporate project in
which WPF/XAML is the tech of choice for UI. I have received criticism for
even suggesting that HTML5 is "up to the job" but I feel like this completely
validates my point.

~~~
huhtenberg
You'd feel differently, if you'd see how slow this presentation runs on my
super-duper (seriously) laptop.

------
ck2
I hate that we are back to the days of "works best on xyz"

Firefox ran it just fine.

------
bestest
"press → to move on"? Seriously? I want to use my mouse.

------
est
it seems that javascript now has global variables

    
    
        PERSISTENT = 1
        TEMPORARY = 0

------
recoiledsnake
Gah, I would pay HN monthly if someone tagged all such links [Best Viewed in
Chrome-only] instead of me clicking through and fiddling with various things.
As an Opera user, such kind of links are very prevalent on HN.

Or maybe it was just my fault for clicking on something with "HTML5" in the
title.

------
Roybatty
So is WebGL part of HTML 5 because Mozilla and Google are implementing it?
Would Google Native Client <https://developers.google.com/native-
client/overview> be part of "HTML5" if Mozilla was implementing it?

