What is Digg?31 Comments
- Peepo, on 12/17/2007, -0/+17This means something like this:
http://people.mozilla.com/~vladimir/demos/photos.s ...
or embedding vids - SimonGray, on 12/17/2007, -0/+13Yeah, but then again, HTML5 is not exactly shipping tomorrow anyway :-)
- andycr512, on 12/17/2007, -0/+12I never knew SVG was so powerful. Perhaps it will provide a competitor to Flash with a bit more maturity.
- GhostFreeman, on 12/17/2007, -1/+13Just let this standard war end, let XHTML2 ascend.
- raynevandunem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+11SVG, video, and JavaScript are separate specs. In the proposed HTML5, along with SMIL, they're supposed to work together by way of the browser's rendering engines in order to generate a "Flash-like" animated user interface and video playback.
The only things that GStreamer is doing for HTML5 in GTK/WebKit are providing the video (preferably Theora) playback and allowing for the playback to be manipulated from within the browser, basically, a video plugin at the most minimal level, not doing much else. The SVG for the user interface and non-video animation is handled by the web layout engine (WebCore, Presto, Gecko or whatever) and the JavaScript is being handled by the JavaScript engine.
Opera's post-9.50 alpha (For Windows), however, handles all three, so its a sign of things to come: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/a-call-for-vide ... - olliejnz, on 12/17/2007, -2/+11Curiously Apple never said anything against media elements, and repeatedly said they could live with the wording that was in the spec. The problem is a number of zealots who believe removing place holder wording was the same as removing ogg from the spec -- Broadly speaking the article posting appeared to be a gross mscharactization, and the only reason apple was listed was to get trolls into it.
Anyway, Ian Hickson (the HTML5 Editor) repeatedly stated that he had removed the wording himself, after inserting the text unilaterally as an experiment.
Of course it's much more fun to bash people and companies without actually reading any of the mailing list archives - Tippis, on 12/17/2007, -0/+8Quite frankly, I'd rather have *both* XHTML2 and (X)HTML5, for the very reason stated in the HTML5 draft:
"XHTML2 defines a new HTML vocabulary with better features for hyperlinks, multimedia content, annotating document edits, rich metadata, declarative interactive forms, and describing the semantics of human literary works such as poems and scientific papers.
However, it lacks elements to express the semantics of many of the non-document types of content often seen on the Web. For instance, forum sites, auction sites, search engines, online shops, and the like, do not fit the document metaphor well, and are not covered by XHTML2.
This specification aims to extend HTML so that it is also suitable in these contexts."
XHTML2 is *very* nifty for enriching old-school text documents, but for content that moves more towards "web apps", it's not quite what we need. - Tyr7BE, on 12/17/2007, -1/+9HAHA...."Posted on December 14, 2007 in Monkey Tales by Tharc" Not only did you cross-post to digg up your lame submission, but it links to a ***** blog with a story posted by YOU! And the story isn't funny AT ALL!
Oh man thanks. That made my morning. Burying the linked submission because it's just terrible. - Jugalator, on 12/17/2007, -1/+8No, SVG doesn't support video, one of the most common uses in Flash, especially as embedding into other forms of dynamic content. (common on various entertainment websites for one thing) It may be a competitor to a subset of Flash's features though, because both supports vector graphics. Also, note that SVG doesn't do the interactivity on that page either -- that's Javascript. Flash on the other hand handles the whole package on its own legs.
- jakethecake, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6"The GTK/WebKit port appears to be maturing rapidly and offers some unique advantages over Firefox's Gecko rendering engine in certain contexts. GTK/WebKit is lightweight and less resource intensive than Gecko, which makes it a particularly good choice for mobile and embedded environments. GTK/WebKit will also eventually be a very good solution for GTK and GNOME applications that want lightweight embedded HTML rendering."
- PoptartKing, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6But are there any browsers that use GTK/Webkit? I think I read Epiphany might be able to use it as a backend by 2.22, but that's a couple months away.
- jakethecake, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6The advantage of having video in HTML5 is that the required libs will be included with your browser and/or toolkit. You won't have to download extra crap just to play videos, No more bloated web players à la flash/.wmv/.ram/.mov.
- jakethecake, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5It's useful if you want to integrate 'Internet video browsing' into your GTK/Gnome application; e.g. file browsers, widgets and so on.
- raynevandunem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Also, the GNOME-native Epiphany web browser with WebKit has been accordingly updated. http://blogs.gnome.org/epiphany/2007/12/17/epiphan ...
This means that better user interfaces can be constructed in GNOME using SVG+SMIL+JavaScript+Theora. This could lead to greater enhancements for GNOME/GTK+ accompanying Compiz or Metacity.
I could liken this to what MS is doing with WPF, which has similar capabilities (animation, user interfaces, and video playback) but is non-free (especially WMV, MPEG and partial AVI).
Anyway, there are quite a few possibilities stemming from this development. Developers who work with GTK+, OpenGL and/or GStreamer, including MacSlow http://macslow.thepimp.net/ , should take note of this.
For more: http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany/WebKit - Ub3rg33k, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4I meant more generally. There are already several standards out there for video on the internet. Embedding a video in a webpage isn't really that hard of a task, so I would think there's something more to it than that. What good is this one over the others?
- Ub3rg33k, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3to jakethecake - ah, that makes more sense. thanks for the explanation.
- Almightymole, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4Amen
- Mejogid, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Furthermore, the video object will be manipulable with CSS and Javascript.
- raynevandunem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Dang it, http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/a-call-for-vide ...
Direct download: http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/opera_950_9644_e ... - raynevandunem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1No, that's an unofficial experimental build by Chris Double http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/ . video support won't make it into Firefox 3 as indicated by the recent releases of Gran Paradiso Alpha 1, and Mozilla's developers haven't yet indicated that they'll support it in future Firefox releases.
- Jugalator, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Firefox also has experimental support for this available as a patch, and as for the final feature ready to get built into the actual browser, you can follow the progress on it here at Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 ...
- darkNiGHTS, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Not so much, pretty much every browser has a built in updating system.
- raynevandunem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1This?
http://packages.debian.org/nl/sid/epiphany-webkit - MWeather, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1"There are already several standards out there for video on the internet."
Like HTML4? - tyrione, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2Epiphany WebKit 2.20.2 is running on Debian Sid.
- Gavagai80, on 12/17/2007, -3/+2Yeah, HTML5 is projected to become a standard in 2022 so they might have to update for HTML6 by 2050 or so.
- Ub3rg33k, on 12/17/2007, -7/+4Can someone explain how this is useful?
- schestowitz, on 12/17/2007, -13/+7Good stuff. it's rather ironic that this comes with WebKit, especially after this recent confrontation http://digg.com/tech_news/Nokia_and_Apple_seem_to_ ... (mind Apple's role)
- 2050, on 12/17/2007, -7/+1It'll be hard time for them updating everytime some new Web Standard comes up!
- Dylson, on 12/17/2007, -14/+2Done ranting now? K stfu.
- Tharcarious, on 12/17/2007, -26/+0shameless plug for funny story http://digg.com/people/5_1_4_Floppy
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 