Comments on: Google Chrome gets HTML video support

Chrome joins Firefox, Safari, and Opera with the ability to display video without a plug-in such as Adobe's Flash. But the HTML standard is rough at best.

[zerock]

What i wonder is... they're already talking about version 3. but where is the Mac version!

[solu1978]

Because Mac has its own safe and out of the box secure safari ;-). " I payed a premium for it "

[jake3373]

Mac is harder 2 program

[Shankland]

You can try the open-source version under development, called Chromium. It's definitely missing some parts, like Flash support, but it's there. A download link in this story: http://news.cnet.com/chrome-on-mac-precursor-rough-but-workable/

[SEO-Expert]

Excellent! Hopefully this will be adopted Worldwide!!

[jake3373]

Yeah, I hope so, too. But you will always have those businesses that still use IE6. And Internet Explorer will probably be the last to adopt this (again).

[trose009]

Sounds pretty good. I was just telling somebody about HTML video the other day. The only problem is making sure ppl don't go spam happy with it.

[forever4now]

There needs to be a major global push to get users to move from IE to Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera (i.e. browsers that support the most current web standards). This would make the lives of web developers so much easier & it would allow web technologies to advance more quickly.

[cracm]

the new version of ie, ie8, is fine and supports all the standards.. no need to go there.

[Clarious]

@cracm: excuse me? "all the standards"? The last time I checked IE* only scored like 20/100 on Acid3 test.

[forever4now]

Oh yah? Try running the acid3 test on IE8. You will get an embarrassingly low score: Is it better than IE7? Yes. Is it good enough? No.
ihttp://acid3.acidtests.org/

Also, IE will most definitely be the last to support the key features of HTML5. Why does the world have to wait for Microsoft, when all the other browsers are in the process of rolling out support for HTML5?

[paulej]

@forever4now, as a user I like IE. I like the way it works, the way it displays pages, etc. Honestly, I like IE8 less than IE7, simply because they remove and add the scrollbar on the right like Firefox does. It is annoying to watch those page shifts. If MS would fix that, I would be happy.

If I were a developer writing JavaScript applications for a living, I would be pulling my hair out over browsers. What JavaScript I have written was rather frustrating. So, I feel your pain. It is like trying to write software for n different platforms wherein every operation has to be checked to see if it might even work or not on a given platform. Code can get seriously bloated and the logic gets burried under all of the conditional house-keeping logic.

But, is removing IE the fix? No. Why? Because there will be something new next year. Users will be forced into a constant state of upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. And, as a developer, you will still be forced to have a lot of complex conditional code to make sure things work right, most of which you cannot thoroughly test -- or at least you would be greatly challenged to test every code path. And, even if you get your code working right on Firefox today, that does not mean it will work in the next release: something might break. Browser upgrades do impose similar risks to OS upgrades. Sometimes, it is even worse: I can write code (excluding drivers, as those are special) for any OS and make fairly sure it will work on a subsequent release. Code in a browser can break and there's nothing I can do because I have no control over the exection environment.

The root of the problem is that JavaScript is the basis of web development. There are some nice aspects to the language, but lots of things I hate about it. Developers should have more choices for application development in a web environment.

For those interested in web development (particularly client-side stuff), one ought to be more concerned with things like the fact that one has extremely limited tools to use. The browser is an over-stretched document viewer. What is truly needed is a new client-side application framework, something quite different than today's browser. Perhaps a client side tool that is designed for applications first and foremost, rather than documents (like today's browsers).

[cracm]

it's going to be so nice to see the end of adobe's proprietary sandbox

[Shankland]

Don't bet on it. For one thing, Flash is the incumbent player, has a huge head start, and is widely available. For another, Flash can do a lot that HTML 5 video can't, like run programs. And for the crowd who hates Flash ads, bear in mind that Canvas 2D and 3D, video and audio tags, SVG, etc., provide plenty of other ways to be in your face.

[Aaron Kempf]

a) google doesn't get to dictate new standards in HTML
b) Safari sucks, it's installed without prompting.. that is called 'spyware'.
c) IE is a better browser, it is safer, faster, more compatible. Firefox / Chrome are half-breeds. Sorry.
d) Adobe is a common enemy.. but I'll bet that google is just trying to lower their stock price (so google can buy Adobe)

[forever4now]

@Aaron Kempf "IE is a better browser, it is safer, faster, more compatible"

What planet are you from? IE is the slowest, least secure .AND least standard compliant browser you can use. Run the acid3 test on IE and then on any of the other browsers. Microsoft should be embarrassed.

[jake3373]

I disagree with all your comments. You are still living in the past.

[maeckg]

Paul Rouget's demo ran smoothly in Opera 9.64, which is stable and finished already. Really cool than cool demo.

[jordanshoesmall]

[url=http://www.jordanshoessupplier.com/]wholesale jordan shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.wholesaleshoesclothes.com/]cheap prada shoes[/url]
cheap ugg
cheap lacoste