Can someone clarify what the licensing situation is?
http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-...
Sadly, none of the above is likely to happen.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim?
No seriously, TimBL should need no further title, given their audience ;)
That would be my guess anyways.
Opus beats almost all other codecs (MP3, AAC and HE-AAC, Vorbis) in subjective quality[3], so it's a good standard to have.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716
[2] http://jmspeex.livejournal.com/11042.html
[3] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/15/opus-codec, also http://people.xiph.org/~greg/opus/ha2011/
As for the audio, WebRTC chose G.711 and Opus as mandatory to implement (MTI)[3]. The reason for G.711 is so that WebRTC can interoperate with legacy devices.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/current/mai...
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/current/msg...
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05267...
In the case of <video>, the site will recommend encoding to both Theora and H.264, and serving both sources, yes. It's the practical (although not necessarily convenient) answer.
[0]: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...
- "Because this is a No Tears guide, we'll use jQuery"
- Use setInterval() rather than requestAnimationFrame().
- Questionable class-like implementation.
Granted the original HTML5rocks! post is over a year and a half old, but bad code and bad practices are NOT helping the cause.
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
So as an app developer, you could just design to 'Web 2011' which is the set of APIs fully supported (or polyfilled) across all browsers as of July 1st, 2011.
Although a cool idea, I don't see how this would mitigate any issues currently surrounding standards.
Have a mobile version which tracks mobile browsers.
Once the HTML5 term was dropped (because it's a living spec), it's impossible to refer to any meaningful feature set. Of course it's all HTML, but there's so much variance in what's supported and what is not. If I can then say 'HTML 2011', that means HTML which was supported by RTM versions in 2011.
A variation on this would be to say that rather than referring to the latest RTM version of browsers, 'HTML 2011' would refer to the subset of HTML which can target 80% (or something) of worldwide users.
Edit: addressed here https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/10/welcoming-the-new-kid-web-...
You're just a click away, the link is at the beginning of the article and it is not an add covered site or link bait.
If that isn't a universal standard, then I don't know what is.
I know it's in alpha, but my first impression was a bit-off putting:
-Look at Hot Topics, figuring this is a good starting point
-Click on INDEXEDDB (I don't use it, have only a vague idea what it is)
-No introduction. No description of what it is or how to get started.
-Instead, a reference with 50 subpages
-8 flagged issues: Missing Relevant Sections, Needs Topics, Data Not Semantic, Unreviewed Import, Incomplete, Not Neutral, Cleanup, Compatibility Incomplete
Just look at these screenshots:
And it took me 5 minutes to load the site - it was down when I first tried it (and on subsequent tries).
So, I personally don't think this is the w3schools killer we were waiting for. At least not yet.
However, the full "web steward" page is more egalitarian:
In a best case scenario they'd push back the launch of the site to make sure that everything is up to their standards (which logos they appear next to, amongst, etc; what their blurb says), but their second choice is to forbid anything about them on the site whilst they think about how they want it to look.
Even mdn can't touch w3schools after all those years.
"Google may use everyone's blocking information to improve the ranking of search results overall."
The promotion of webplatform would really help webplatform gain popularity. Do not hesitate to send the link to webplatform ( http://www.webplatform.org ) to as many people as possible.
Share webplatform's site ( http://www.webplatform.org ) on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc...
webplatform webplatform webplatform webplatform webplatform webplatform webplatform
Some thoughts...
The Q/A format in general seems like a great solution to the problem of sharing the best way to do things because it requires the person asking the question to ask a 'good' question and the person answering the question to provide a 'good' answer. Voting up the 'best' answer gives the closest approximation to the 'right' answer. The WP forum is devoid of any real content. It'll be years before it has anything approximating what SO offers.
I can see the wiki format being good as a replacement for something like w3schools, but that isn't really what this appears to be. Plus, we all know that wiki's get out of date pretty quickly with the ever changing technology... unless of course enough people are paid to work on this content... and who says they are the 'experts'. You can already see in the comments here that people disagree with the coding examples. Who is going to moderate all of this?
Google, Microsoft, Adobe and other stewards have fulltime technical writers working on new content and reviewing incoming contributed content.
[1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/tutorials/your_first_look_a...
[2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Your_first_look_at_JavaScript#Where_t...
I think the use of setInterval is fine because it keeps the code very short compared to the requestAnimationFrame shim, but there should definitely be mention of it.
Hopefully I can add my tutorials to this site (which I think are much cleaner) when I'm finally done with my (blocking) larger projects.
[my bad, it looks like maybe anybody can edit it after registering.]
> - Questionable class-like implementation.
Can you just lay it all out right here? What is wrong (or suboptimal) with the implementation, what alternatives would you prefer, etc. Everything that is behind that bullet, I want to hear it!
It works, but in my opinion it is absolutely not a correct way to write code. In any case, OOP and class-style programming in Javascript is a large topic.
My concern was perhaps due to expectations about the quality of the site's content, as people were talking about where it stood compared to w3schools and even MDN.
Original jQuery code:
var canvasElement = $("<canvas width='" + CANVAS_WIDTH +
"' height='" + CANVAS_HEIGHT + "'></canvas>");
var canvas = canvasElement.get(0).getContext("2d");
canvasElement.appendTo('body');
var canvas = document.createElement("canvas");
canvas.width = CANVAS_WIDTH;
canvas.height = CANVAS_HEIGHT;
var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
document.body.appendChild(canvas);
When I ran a phpBB forum that spammers would join to get some of my PageRank 2 juice, putting up a special question on the registration form (by modifying the php code), was much more effective than phpBB3's captcha function with maximum difficulty applied.
Spamming software doesn't have support for capctha questions, only captcha images.
I wrote a plugin for wordpress years ago that simply asked you to copy a number into a box. If you had JavaScript, it would even do it for you and hide it so most users never even knew it was there. It filtered out nearly every single piece of spam. This would have been mid-2000s though, might be different now.
At least that's what I initially thought. But after some more digging it seems that x and y are hard-coded to be 2 and 3, respectively.
I opened the registration page in 4 different browsers with different IP addresses (my own, my VPS, and a couple borrowed from Tor) and in all cases the "security" question was "What is 2 + 3?"
Unbelievable.
Pretty much every HTML/CSS resource out there is a w3schools killer. w3schools sucks.
No, it's the best a small team, sponsored by those companies, but having nothing to do with them --it's not like Google or Adobe or MS assigned their best engineers to the new site-- could come up with as an ALPHA release, and in a short period of time.
Isn't it OBVIOUS?
No, it's not. I didn't (and still don't) see a mention of it being alpha or even beta on the site's homepage or the linked article. There's a notice on wiki pages that I missed.
And my impression (from the article) was that the initial content is provided by the aforementioned companies' employees, and the site is curated by W3C. So it's not like a bunch of nerds have created a site and these tech giants are endorsing it by putting their logos in the main page. They are the guys who are running it, and it's not a charity, too. It benefits all these companies (whom, in total, worth maybe about 3 trillion dollars) financially.
I'm not sour at them or anything - I'll probably use their site and share it with others. I'm just disappointed that it's just not up to the standards of what I was hoping these multi-trillion campaniles are able to do. If they were just a bunch of guys, I'd commend them. Now that it's a coalition of biggest tech giants, I can't be as forgiving.
"You need a browser that supports Web 2010 or higher to use this app."
On the other side, it would help users pressure webapp developers that aren't supporting their specific device / OS version.
"My browser is 2014. Why isn't this working." would be hard for customer service to BS around.
THe downside is that even if most of the browsers being used support some 2015 feature now, it would be hard to justify using it in 2013.
The main goal was streaming (of both music and speech), and hence, low latency. Matching or bettering high-latency codecs (like Vorbis) on quality was just a bonus, and I believe somewhat of a surprise to the developers when listening test results came out.
> Opus is a totally open, royalty-free, highly versatile audio codec. Opus is unmatched for interactive speech and music transmission over the Internet, but also intended for storage and streaming applications
[0]http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Getting_Started First sentence: "Anyone can contribute to WPD."
* The naming convention is terrible. 'canvasElement' sounds like it would be the canvas element, yes? No, it's the canvas jQuery object!
* Use of hard-to-read string concatenation.
* Use of .get(0) - use [0] instead.
And some non-jQuery objections:
* Unfortunate line continuation style that is hard to maintain (What if you change the length of the canvasElement variable name? You have to re-align it!) and falls apart in a proportional font.
* Inconsistent use of single vs. double quotes. I recommend single quotes for JS strings and double quotes for HTML attributes. Do it the other way around if you prefer, but at least pick one and stick with it!
* I'm reading the code out of context, but I'm guessing that CANVAS_WIDTH and CANVAS_HEIGHT are "constants". Why are they being used directly in the code like this? Shouldn't this code be wrapped up in a function that takes those as parameters?
Ignoring that last objection for the moment, I might write the jQuery version like this:
var $canvas = $('<canvas>'), ctx = $canvas[0].getContext('2d');
$canvas
.width(CANVAS_WIDTH)
.height(CANVAS_HEIGHT)
.appendTo('body');
BTW the $ prefix on a variable containing a jQuery object is a very common practice in jQuery code. It's especially useful when you need both the jQuery object and the corresponding DOM element (assuming a single-element selector like '#foo'). Then you can use $ on the jQuery object and the same name without the $ for the DOM element:
var $footer = $('#footer'), footer = $footer[0];HTML shouldn't feature in javascript code IMHO.
> Instead of using prototypes and functions shared among all instances of the same type of object, it uses closures for each instance.
So, is this generally considered a poor practice? I usually only use prototypes and shared functions when I am going to be instantiating the same type of object many times (when doing lots of vector math, for example).
On top of programming, I also do system ops, ui design, customer service (and client service), project management. Developing a web site takes a lot more than programming, especially if the team is small.
Believable.
Extremely believable.
I'm afraid the points you make are not gonna help with my condescending tone.
50% usage? That's a HUGE success for a de-facto standard. There are even _official_ standards with much LESS use (SOAP comes to mind). So, the "50% non usage" part means absolutely nothing.
>you are also assuming that the target is a web browser, which is what jQuery is meant for. jQuery has no bearing on firefox extension programming, nodejs programming, or upcoming win8 RT and Firefox OS programming
Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant. Yes, a standard is only a standard is some SPECIFIC field. RS-232 is a standard, but has no bearing on, say, building construction. And those ANSI Screw size standards have no bearing at all in software: http://www.engineersedge.com/screw_threads_chart.htm
That doesn't make them any less standard.
That said, your examples are also false. jQuery can and IS used in nodejs AND in firefox extension programming. And presummably Firefox OS programming. Some examples:
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript-ajax/how-to-scr...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/491490/how-to-use-jquery-...