This sets a very poor example for Apple supporting standards.
I ran Chromium with my user agent set to Safari. And here's where it gets interesting.
The demos that don't work in Chromium, notably the ones that require CSS 3D transforms, get removed from the listings on the pages that have them. So for example, the "Transitions" page, only the Dissolve, Toss, Slide In, Iris and Fade Through effects show up. Unsurprisingly, those are the least technically impressive. The gallery demo in Chromium runs at a fraction of Safari's frame rate. Very choppy.
The VR demo gives you an overlay explaining that it's only supported by the iPhone browser, Safari, or another browser with 3D CSS transforms.
So I guess their demos actually detect if your browser meets the spec or not, and remove the stuff that doesn't work. I'm guessing this was the original plan -- let everyone in to show off the HTML5 tech. But then someone looked at the nerfed versions without 3D and compositing and said "that's pretty weak, we don't want that to be people's impression" or something.
Which, given other browser-makers' commitment to supporting the emerging specs, just goes to show that 'standards' is a misnomer in this case. In informal usage that's OK; most of us hope that the standardisation of CSS3, HTML5 and related WHATWG initiatives will happen sooner rather than later. But misapplying the term in your marketing material (linked from the front page) is confusing and unhelpful.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ 'W3C Working Draft 4 March 2010'
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ 'W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999'
So by 'recommendation', am I to assume you're talking about HTML 4.01?
(edit: again with the downvotes, no answer...)
To be more accurate Apple should have said that it is committed in implementing HTML5 standard, not that it has done it, because at the moment HTML5 is not ready.
From Wikipedia: "Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later. However, many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products"
He was saying that it is useful well before it is an official recommendation. He is a member of the WHAT-WG and Apple was one of the founding members so what he's saying is pretty much in lock-step with apple and the webkit team.
From here http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ:
For a spec to become a REC today, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate)
The candidate recommendation phase, which WHATWG expects to happen next year is a much more relevant date. That aside I do wonder if this level of effort isn't just wasted pedantry.
But my point was that giving impression that one company already has it all ready is stretching the truth as HTML5 is still a moving target.
"The upstream work is not sufficient for what we will need. It is only the beginning of the work. We would need to offload compositing to the GPU."
Sounds like Apple decided to enable the existing WebKit implementation while Google is working on their own implementation. (which could very well end up back into WebKit proper at some point) This is exactly how standards in the context of friendly competition are supposed to work. You can't really expect everyone working off WebKit code to coordinate when certain features or standards support are turned on in beta or public releases.
In reality, all of the CSS transforms and effects (and plenty of other Safari features) were created by Apple without input from any of the other browser vendors or standards bodies. Some of those things have been picked up, some haven't. I actually think this is the right way to do things, and I don't want to give off the impression that I don't appreciate what the Safari team has spent the last few years doing, but I'm also not wild about letting Apple distort the picture for the sake of scoring PR points against flash (which is what this website is all about).
The difference is between adopting open standards that others haven't gotten around to yet
versus inventing your own undocumented functionality for the purpose of making compatibility impossible.
Apple is further down the track. MS was trying to derail the train.
Making you download Safari does seem a strange choice. But then, the whole point of the page is "look how well these things work in Safari", so why not?
Standards should work everywhere IMO
I am a member of WHATWG mailing list so I can see how standards are born, and this level of misunderstanding about web standards in general and HTML5 in particular really saddens me.
Can you, or any of the dozens of upvoters, explain the logic behind that criticism? It literally seems to make no sense to me, so I must be missing something. The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them. It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports. So, huh?
It doesn't say 'emerging'. It says 'reliable'.
> It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports.
Except that it doesn't. (a) because the specs are still in draft, and (b) because independent tests show Safari's support to be impressive but nowhere near complete.
#gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5) { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);}
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80);
DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax.
[0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property
IE's transform filter uses only matrix, which scares the hell out of designers.
This explains how vendor prefixes fit into the standards process.
Contrast with Chrome's Experiments (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/) that you can try on any browser and see how it copes.
Edit: lots of the demos work perfectly well in Chrome if run from here instead: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/
You’ll need to download Safari to view this demo. This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes.
As you see, it doesn't mention that MY BROWSER doesn't support the latest web standards. It simply says, that Safari supports web standards and that if you want to check the demo, download Safari. If you don't want to download Safari, you won't see the demo.
The Message is clear.
OK, so it's an advert, but it's a misleading one.
* Apple might have limited to Safari to keep things simple--to be absolutely sure their demo would work 100%.
* I agree that it sucks that their demos are only viewable w/ Safari. But there are plenty of HTML5 demos out there for us :)
Oh, get a life! How mean you always are, Apple!
(navigator.userAgent.match(/Gecko\/(\d{4})/) || [0,2005])[1] < 2005) headers['Connection'] = 'close'
And there's the problem: you're complaining about what you think is a violation of the CSS spec by making a reference to a mechanism and practice that was deliberately baked into it.
The authors of the CSS spec specifically accommodated vendor-specific extensions to give browser authors a place to work on supporting emerging abilities that are still in a state of flux. It's a special namespace where features are allowed to incubate. When these relevant standards leave draft status and become 'candidate recommendations', then a simple change will allow browser vendors to support whatever CSS property syntax is approved. When this happens, updating content on the web is an extremely easy change. This mechanism allows browser vendors and spec writers to work concurrently without creating a mess.
So, it's kind of funny that you're complaining about this when Apple is actually doing the right thing according to the letter and spirit of the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords
Edit to head your next objection off at the pass: Yes, the spec also suggests that "authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions". This is a message to web developers, not browser developers. Apple does not want a web where every CSS file has "-webkit-" properties in it. They want these emerging standards to be ratified so that the vendor-specific properties can graduate to an official, approved syntax.
Stop hating Apple for no reason.