Group items tagged

I disagree with the authors conclusions here.  He misses some very significant developments.  Particularly around Google, WebKit, and WebKit-HTML5. For instance, there is this article out today; "Google Really is Giving Away Free Nexus One and Droid Handsets to Developers".  Also, Palm is working on a WiMAX/WiFi version of their WebOS (WebKit) smartphone for Sprint.  Sprint and ClearWire are pushing forward with a very aggressive WiMAX rollout in the USA.  San Francisco should go on line this year!   One of the more interesting things about the Sprint WiMAX plan is that they have a set fee of $69.00 per month that covers EVERYTHING; cellphone, WiMAX Web browsing, video, and data connectivity, texting (SMS) and VOIP.  Major Sprint competitors, Verizon, AT&T and TMobile charge $69 per month, but it only covers cellphone access.  Everything else is extra adn also at low speed/ low bandwidth.  3G at best.  WiMAX however is a 4G screamer.  It's also an open standard.  (Verizon FIOS and LTE are comparable and said to be coming soon, but they are proprietary technologies).   The Cable guys are itneresting in that they are major backers of WiMAX, but also have a bandwidth explosive technology called Docsis. There is an interesting article at TechCrunch, "In Mobile, Fragmentation is Forever. Deal With It."  I disagree entirely with the authors conclusion.  WebKit is capable of providing a universal HTML5 application developers layer for mobile and desktop browser computing.  It's supported by Apple, Google, Palm (WebOS), Nokia, RiMM (Blackberry) and others to such an extent that 85% of all smartphones shipped this year will either ship with WebKit or, an Opera browser compatible with the WebKit HTML5 document layout/rendering model.   I would even go as far as to say that WebKit-HTML5 owns the Web's document model and application layer for the future.  Excepting for Silverlight, which features the OOXML document model with over 500 million desktop develop

Chrome runs as close as any browser can to the bleeding edge of Web standards. Though it uses the same open source WebKit rendering engine as Safari, it doesn't reliably support the controversial, proprietary CSS3 transformation and animation tricks that Apple's built into Safari. However, like every browser I tested, it earned a perfect score in a compatibility test for CSS3 selectors, and it joined Safari and Opera with a flawless score of 100 in the Acid3 web standards benchmark. Chrome 5 also supports both Apple's H.264 codec and Mozilla's preferred open source Ogg Theora technology for plugin-free HTML5 video, and it beautifully played back HTML5 demo videos from YouTube and Brightcove. In XHTML and CSS tests, Chrome was surprisingly slower than Safari, despite their shared rendering engine -- but the race was close. Safari rendered a local XHTML test page in 0.58 seconds to Chrome's 0.78 seconds, and a local CSS test page in 33 milliseconds to Chrome's 51 milliseconds. Note that Chrome still rendered XHTML more than twice as fast as Opera (1.67 seconds) and left Firefox (12.42 seconds--no, that's not a typo) eating its dust. In CSS, it also beat the pants off Opera (193 milliseconds) and Firefox (342 milliseconds). But Chrome shines brightest when handling JavaScript. Its V8 engine zipped through the SunSpider Javascript benchmark in 448.6 milliseconds, narrowly beating Opera's 485.8 milliseconds, and absolutely plastering Firefox's 1,161.4 milliseconds. However, Safari 5's time of 376.3 miliseconds in the SunSpider test beat Chrome 5 handily.

The Future of the Open Web You're right that the browser wars do not matter - except for this point of demarcation; browsers that support HTML+ and browser that support 1998 HTML. extensive comment by ~ge~ Not all Web services and applications support HTML+, the rapidly advancing set of technologies that includes HTML5, CSS3, SVG/Canvas, and JavaScript (including the libraries and JSON). Microsoft has chosen to draw the Open Web line at what amounts to 1998-2001 level of HTML/CSS. Above that line, they provision a rich-client / rich-server Web model bound to the .NET-WPF platform where C#, Silverlight, and XAML are very prominent. Noticeably, Open Web standards are for the most part replaced at this richer MSWeb level by proprietary technologies. Through limited support for HTML/CSS, IE8 itself acts to dumb down the Open Web. The effect of this is that business systems and day-to-day workflow processes bound to the ubiquitous and very "rich" MSOffice Productivity Environment have little choice when it comes to transitioning to the Web but to stay on the Microsoft 2010 treadmill. Sure, at some point legacy business processes and systems will be rewritten to the Web. The question is, will it be the Open Web or the MS-Web? The Open Web standards are the dividing line between owning your information and content, or, having that content bound to a Web platform comprised of proprietary Microsoft services, systems and applications. Web designers and developers are still caught up in the browser wars. They worry incessantly as to how to dumb down Web content and services to meet the limited functionality of IE. This sucks. So everyone continues to watch "the browser wars" stats. What they are really watching for though is that magic moment where "combined" HTML+ browser uptake in marketshare signals that they can start to implement highly graphical and collaboratively interactive HTML+ specific content. Meanwhile, the greater Web is a

Return to the bad old days Many of Apple's demos rely on "experimental" CSS3 properties to work. The exact implementation of these properties has yet to be hammered out, so browser vendors must use their best guess to determine how they should be rendered onscreen. Because of the ambiguity this introduces, it is the custom for browser vendors to attach a vendor-specific prefix to the CSS property names. Firefox uses "moz," while Safari uses "webkit," named for the browser's WebKit rendering engine. This means Web developers who want to use a specific experimental CSS feature must include the vendor-specific properties for each browser they want to support in their style sheets. It's a less than ideal situation, but the actual coding required is trivial. Apple chose not to bother for its HTML5 demo site. That would be bad enough. But Apple's demos don't work on Google's Chrome browser, either -- and Chrome also uses the "webkit" prefix for its experimental CSS3 properties (because it's also based on the WebKit rendering engine). Rather than detecting browser capabilities and degrading the user experience gracefully where features aren't supported -- as is the accepted best practice on modern browsers -- Apple chose to deliberately screen out any browser that doesn't self-identify as Safari. That's right: By forcing my browser's user agent string to identify as Safari 5, I was able to view many of the demos just fine in Firefox 3.6 on Windows. Seriously, Apple? I thought we left elaborate browser-detection scripts behind in the bad old days of the 1990s. I can't imagine anyone would want to start up the practice again, let alone one of the leading companies in the development of next-generation Web standards.

The demo movie above from Adobe shows off some WebKit-based experiments that seek to change that. Adobe Engineering VP Paul Betlem narrates and the demo, and he shows how his team is extending the WebKit browser to do some new typographic tricks. WebKit is the open source engine behind Safari and Google Chrome, and it powers the most popular mobile browsers like the ones on the iPhone, iPad, iPod and all the Android phones. The demo certainly shows some impressive results. However, we're a bit suspicious of the methodology behind the results. Betlem talks about extending WebKit's CSS support via vendor prefixes, but neglects to mention what those prefixes are built against - in other words, there's no mention of submitting a standard that other browsers could work from.

Good quotes.  The Wired article is also worth reading.  The important take away being that Apple is fully committed to native browser HTML5.  So is Google.  But, i found out at the Web 2.0 - WebKit party in 2009, there is quite a bit of tension between Apple WebKit and Google.  The problem being that Apple is doing all the work while Google is pumping up HTML5, Web Sockets and Native Client; all of which are essential to WebKit, but also to Chrome OS, Chrome, Android and the Google Apps push. excerpt:  According to Wired, at an Apple "town hall" meeting after the introduction of the Flashless iPad, Steve Jobs unloaded on Google, calling the search giant's "don't be evil" motto "bullshit," before rounding on Adobe. "They are lazy. They have all this potential to do interesting things, but they just refuse to do it," he said. "Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy... Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it's because of Flash. No one will be using Flash...The world is moving to HTML5."

Incredible.  I'm wondering if either Jason or florian has thought about using the Chrome JSON messaging layer to expose docx conversions to OTXML?  Essentially, when Florian breaks a .docx document, he only deals with the objects and how they are positioned (layout) on a page.  Once captured and described, these xObjects could then be converted to JSON.  The Chrome web client/ web server port (9222) could then, theoretically be used to observe the JSON xObjects?  Interesting. intro:  Under the hood, Chrome Developer Tools is a web application written in HTML, JavaScript and CSS. It has a special binding available at JavaScript runtime that allows interacting with chrome pages and instrumenting them. Interaction protocol consists of commands that are sent to the page and events that the page is generating. Although Chrome Developer Tools is the only client of this protocol, there are ways for third parties to bypass it and start instrumenting browser pages explicitly. We will describe the ways it could be done below. Contents Protocol Debugging over the wire Using debugger extension API

Wow.  Google has re-purposed IE for the Open Web! excerpts: A number of modern Web features cannot be used pervasively on the Internet because Microsoft's dominant browser, Internet Explorer, often fails to support current and emerging standards. Google has a plan to drag IE into the world of modern browsing by building a plugin that will allow it to use Chrome's HTML renderer and high-performance JavaScript engine. Google hopes that delivering Chrome's rendering engine in an IE plugin will provide a pragmatic compromise for users who can't upgrade. Web developers will be able to use an X-UA-Compatible meta tag to specify that their page should be displayed with the Chrome renderer plugin instead of using Internet Explorer's Trident engine. This approach will ensure that the Chrome engine is only used when it is supposed to and that it won't disrupt the browser's handling of legacy Web applications that require IE6 compatibility. Google is opening the source code now to get feedback and assistance with testing. The plugin will include Google's speedy V8 JavaScript engine, support for Canvas, SVG, and all of the other features that users enjoy today in Chrome. That also includes the next-generation CSS rendering features of WebKit such as rounded corners. The pages will look just like they would if they were rendered in Chrome. Google is going much further [than Mozilla] by providing the entire renderer. If the plugin is adopted by a sufficiently broad number of users, then Web developers will never again have to contend with IE's limitations. It could also open the door for adoption of HTML 5 and other important emerging standards.

Interesting strategy. Now if we could just get da Vinci/HTML+ to market ...

excerpt:  As you might know, WebKit Web Inspector is implemented as an HTML + CSS + JavaScript web application. What you might not know is that Web Inspector can run outside of the browser environment and still provide complete set of its features to the end user. Debugging over the wire Running debugger outside the browser is interesting because mobile platforms do not often provide enough screen real estate for quality debugging; they have network stack and CPU specifics that often affect page load and runtime. Still, they are based on the WebCore rendering engine, they could have Web Inspector instrumentation running and hence expose valuable debugging information to the end user. Now that Web Inspector is functioning out-of-process over the serialized-message-channel, attaching Web Inspector window to the remote browser is possible. Here is an example of the remote debugging session using Chromium: 1. Start your target browser with the remote-debugging-port command line switch: Chromium --remote-debugging-port=9222

Page after page of links to experiments using advanced features of the Webkit-based Google Chrome. But update to Chrome 2.x before playing.

Flash just died. Webkit and HTML-plus are the winners.

Webkit on the march.

Om Malik has an interesting commentary on Google Voice, the Android OS, and a new gVoice application for iPhones and Androids. For sure, new gVoice app meshes into the Andorid OS as if it were hard coded into the silicon. I left a lengthy comment in the discussion section describing my experiences with gVoice and what i see emerging as Google's Unified Productivity Platform. Of course, gWave, Chrome, Chrome OS, webkit-HTML+, and the sweep of Google Web applications and service come into play. Excerpt: Can Google be your phone company? The answer is yes. I came to that conclusion after I met with Vincent Paquet, co-founder of GrandCentral (a company acquired by Google) and now a member of the Google Voice team. Earlier today he stopped by our office to show the mobile app versions of its Google Voice service for Blackberry and Android. Google recently announced that it was going to make the Voice service widely available to users in the U.S. soon.

You need an HTML5 ready browser to visit this demonstration.  Amazing stuff though.  The latest Chrome beta 3.0.196.2 works well.  Ajaxian has a review of this at:  http://ajaxian.com/archives/audio-canvas Lots of Webkit tweets in the demo!

Whoops. This is the better article! ZDNet got the dregs. CNET got the real thing: Google Native Client, HTML5, GWT, Wave, Web Worker Threads, webkit/chromium, Chrome, O3D "Google wants its Native Client technology to be a little more native. Google Native Client, still highly experimental, lets browsers run program modules natively on an x86 processor for higher performance than with Web programming technologies such as JavaScript or Flash that involve more software layers to process and execute the code. But to use it, there's a significant barrier: people must install a browser plug-in.

"Never underestimate the web," says Google VP of Engineering Vic Gundotra in his keynote at Google I/O this morning..... Tim O'Reilly provides us with his play-by-play account of the Google I/O event. Amazing stuff. The Web has arrived and it is no longer the "network of networks". It's rather quickly becoming the mother of all platforms. Great coverage.

That article includes a link to an amazing web page, amazing if you've got a bleeding edge HTML 5 browser. http://htmlfive.appspot.com/ The browsers and versions needed are listed on that page. If you've got Google Chrome, upgrade to Chrome 2.0 (hot off the presses) from About Google Chrome (on the customization menu). Playtime with the bleeding edge of the Open Web.