HTML5

What do you guys think of the HTML 5 language? I can't wait to use the video tag. I hope all the places that use flash convert over to this and Adobe shrivels up into a little ball and dies.

Wishful thinking.

HTML 5 language
2/10

http://tinyvid.tv/ uses it.

it doesn't work in chrome.
it's a pain to use in firefox.

Wait until Adobe gets their way and makes EOT the only standard. It will happen and there's nothing we can do to prevent it.

The video tag does nothing that plugins couldn't already do; case in point, Adobe Flash. That Flash is a insecure and poorly written unportable pile of browser crashing, cpu-sucking bugs is beside the point. Adding a dedicated tag doesn't change anything, especially when you aren't even given a single guarantee of available decoders.

>>3
Actually, HTML is rightly classified as a "language."

I guess you're a PHP programmer, and not a Computer Scientist.

>>2
Even if it happens, things will still suck.

>>5
EOT? End of transmission?

>>7
I guess you're unaware of what HTML stands for. Why the fuck would you call it "HTML 5 language"?

>>8
If you don't know what this piece of DRM retardedness is, you're unaware of what how much of a shithole HTML is gonna be.

http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2008/09/web_fonts_2.html
Note: this is what web developers actually believe.

>>9
You're right, that's completely retarded. The internet is only going downhill from now on, so what did you expect?

>>10
DRM retardedness
Lets face it, proprietary things being standardized is the only way for the web to progress. ECMAScript? XMLHR? Canvas? innerHTML? SVG? Favicon? Cookies? Yes, they are all the product of "patented" technology being standardized, and the entire web is based around them (Canvas is a notable exception but watch this space). Now lets see what "standards" the open sores community has come up with. Ogg Vorbis? MNG? Hell, the only website I know that uses either of these is Wikipedia for the shitty embedded videos, which is a questionable real world "use" because nobody has ever actually found a reliable way to view them.

>>11
Vorbis ... video
I don't think so.

>>12
Ogg rather, though it applies to the audio clips equally.

>>11
Too obvious. Leave out favicons next time, and don't mention MNG. People know about PNG.

>>11
EOT = OTF + obfuscation.

All the commercial foundries are debating about the best for of DRM, because they are way too dumb to figure out that they could just host the fonts on a CDN and sell websites right to have their referrer whitelisted.

I don't care about EOT as long as it doesn't have license fees. It can be deobfuscated in 10 lines of code, and you don't even need an external key or anything like that. If it keeps the retarded suits happy, I'm all for it.

The other option is not using all these fonts at all - I'd rather steal them using wget+deobfuscate than having to hunt rapidshares or torrents for them. In any case it sure beats text as images or Flash objects, which is what you're getting now.

Also: PDF already uses obfuscation when embedding fonts. Nobody has died because of it, and I don't really see much complaints because people just don't care. (On the other hand I find the lack of free, OSS PDF unlockers rather disturbing)

>>16
Ripped web-fonts would not be very useful anyway, even if you deobfuscate them(it's just a simple xor encryption with constant key), because they're stripped fonts, so they lack the full charset. I don't see any reason to even obfuscate them since they lack the entire charset, but I think the reason MS did it was because of legal reasons(which is strange as the encryption is documented and someone doesn't even have to reverse engineer it, to be able to create something which reads or deobfuscates the fonts).

>>17
The "obfuscation" is there so you can't just use them directly. It's like a "copyright bit", to indicate clearly that you can't use them. They also include a list of allowed domains so you can't just use it for another page - that's the "restrictive" part.

If you think about it it's just like the protection on DVDs and the like - it's obvious it just can't work, but at least they're being honest about it. For some reason the font foundries are happy with a system like this (just like the movie studios are with DVDs and friends).

They do support stripping, but so does any font format (duh!), but in practice I doubt it'll be used much (except on fonts with multiple character sets) because it's a huge hassle (you'd need an automated system which detects what characters are in use and rebuilt as necessary - far too much ENTERPRISE for your average web site).

>>16
(On the other hand I find the lack of free, OSS PDF unlockers rather disturbing)
/* This patch is free software.  You should have received a copy of the
   /prog/ HMAPL along with this patch.  If not, hax <my anus>. */
--- xpdf-3.02.orig/xpdf/XRef.cc    2007-02-27 16:05:52.000000000 -0600
+++ xpdf-3.02/xpdf/XRef.cc    2007-08-30 10:16:47.000000000 -0500
@@ -771,19 +771,19 @@
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToPrint(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permPrint);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToChange(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permChange);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToCopy(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permCopy);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToAddNotes(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permNotes);
+  return true;
 }
 
 Object *XRef::fetch(int num, int gen, Object *obj) {

>>19
You could go to jail for that and have your anus haxed for real.

Just use SVG fonts - all the good browsers support it.

>>21
The same browsers which support TTF/OTF. Ergo your wrong.

>>22
Actually, a superset of the browsers that support SVG fonts support TTF/OTF. The reasons to wilfully not support such crappy browsers should be obvious.

It's really easy to predict what's gonna happen. It's already started actually.

The next version of every browser that matters supports proper embed.

Most foundries will continue to disallow any form of embed. They'll spend tons of time C&Ding kids stealing their fantasy and handwriting faces for their personal pages.
A few hipster foundries will say they're cool with EOT, but not with normal import.
While the w3c will eventually bow down and make EOT a standard, it will take at least 3 more years. Good luck getting Webkit and Opera to play along until then.

Then a few guys making shitty useless fantasy fonts but who understand how the world works will license their fonts for normal embed, and they will release a few new ones for free. Every blog in the world will post about it and post a code example that will be posted all over the world.

For a year, the whole web will be filled with every Larabie font ever. It will be so bad, everyone will ask how to turn off font embed. No browser will want to add support for EOT after that debacle.

Then serious foundries will be forced to either allow embed, or take a serious hit in sales. Since it's legal to make almost identical copies of fonts so long as the name differs, people will just go all Arial on the ones that don't start allowing embed fast enough.

In the end everybody somewhat kind of wins.

>>24
What the hell is a ``fantasy face/font''?

>>25
Everything here:
http://www.dafont.com/top.php?nb_ppp_old=50&page=1&top=1&text=Hi+%2Fprog%2Friders&nb_ppp=50&psize=m&classt=alpha

Enjoy the web of 2010.

>>26
I will, actually. There's a billion atrocious websites that I'm never going to visit out there already, what's a few more gonna do?

>>26
I will, along with my cake

>>26
We must work to stop font embedding!!

there is little reason to NOT use Flash for everything. come on Flash sites are so much much better than html ones. nicer and easier to use.

>>30
This is what idiots actually believe

>>31
YHBT

>>30
4/10. If you want to use this style, you need to be even less subtle. But even then you'll never get more than a 5/10 if you merely provide annoyance. You should learn the local style instead.

The video tag is a good first step. The next step is to standardize around FLV for embedded videos, since everyone has the Flash Player already anyway.

>>34
Then it is true; I am the last. Fuck flash!!

>>34
standardize around FLV
Oh no you don't.

>>36
Well, at least FLV is a much better container than that OGG/OGM abortion will ever be. Look at what they had to do to be able to seek with decent performance:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/04/media_cache.html
That retarded trash needs to perform a fucking binary search over the file, looking for anything that resembles a packet header containing a timestamp. I already knew it sucked badly when seeking from optical media took several seconds; over the network it takes dozens - and the media cache won't save you until after the first few seeks, or after the whole thing is loaded already.

Fun fact: even VBR MP3 files (generally) behave better than this. They don't even have any structure to speak of, but at least somebody though about putting an index in there.

Of all of AVI, MP4, MKV, WMV, FLV and OGM, the latter is clearly the worst of them (AVI does lack true frame reordering and variable framerate support, but at least does well what it was designed to do). I don't know about RMVB, but it's probable better too, because you have to actually try really hard to match OGG's stupidity.

These people are only good for designing audio codecs. For everything else, you're in for some nasty surprises, not to mention typical freetard FUD.

Fortunately only Wikipedia will ever use this.

>>34
Too bad Flash has already standardized around mp4/H.264/AAC.

>>38
It's not just Flash. The combination you just mentioned will work out of the box on any of:

* Windows 7
* Mac OS X (any recent version)
* Safari's <video> support (it uses QuickTime, see previous point)
* All decent media players (MPlayer, MPC-HC) and some that aren't (VLC)
* Nero Digital (both hardware devices and the codecs they install along with Nero)
* DivX 7 (see "Nero Digital", albeit these are using MKV instead of MP4, but I don't think any hardware will ship without MP4 support)
* Infinity of handheld devices (iPhone, iPod, iShit, modern phones, PSP, modern portable media players...)
* Your fucking video card, if it's actually a video card (not from Intel) and has been made in the last few years
* Your fucking video card, even if it's trash (from Intel) as long as it has been made in the last few months
* A plugin that is already running in your browser (Flash or the sodding QuickTime shit)

Good luck fighting that!

Also it's my understanding software targeting W7 or OSX can use the OS decoders for free, in all the senses of the word.

I'm glad this has been adopted as the new de-facto standard: it also happens to offer the best compression/quality ratio available today, as well as many extremely high quality implementations. It's hard to ask for more, and it's a rare occasion where the very best has won.

I'm kind of rooting for Dirac, but it's still too young. It requires a lot of tweaking, and they need both encoders and decoders that won't use a jizzilion hectocycles per frame.
If the codec received the kind of love and attention that Xvid or x264 has had, I think Dirac + Vorbis in Matroska could be a winner.