What's with the negativity in here? This is a slide deck that was used by speakers at Google IO in 2011 to present a session about HTML5. They figured it may be useful so they shared it online so attendees and people who couldn't make it could see and play with the slides afterwards. It makes no sense to criticize these slides for not working in Firefox, Opera, on mobiles, or any other use case for which they were not developed. It's a slide deck. Be glad these guys felt like sharing their knowledge with you.
<p><pre><code> You are running a Mozilla browser. [...], this presentation has only been tested using WebKit browsers such as Google Chrome or Safari.
</code></pre>
<i>sigh</i> Didn't people learn when it was "This has only been tested with Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0" ?
That's such sites which tip you as why HTML5 is not the synonymous of "proper, standard HTML implementation" anymore.<p>"You are running a Mozilla browser. While such browsers generally have excellent support for HTML5 features, this presentation has only been tested using WebKit browsers"<p>Exactly. What you mean here is webkit-HTML.<p>A big part of HTML5 is "we're saying this is going to be an HTML5 API and thats it".<p>For example, Firefox and Chrome have different Audio APIs. How that's standard?
If you used this many gratuitous visual effects in a Power Point presentation I'd think you were an idiot with no sense of taste, but because it's being rendered in a web browser I think this is impressive for some reason.
A HTML5 presentation that works only in Webkit.
No thanks, I am not interested.<p>Web and HTML5 is about standards, and my life would be easier if IE would not do the things it did in past, now I'm seeing the same from Webkit.
Nope<p><a href="http://www.imgur.com/B19Rk.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.imgur.com/B19Rk.png</a><p>No right arrow key means that even if I can use 2/4 of those html5 features, i can't use your presentation.
I think everyone should keep in mind that this presentation was (seemingly) created in 2011, so a couple things might be out of date (e.g. BlobBuilder is now deprecated).
Everything looks great, other than the fact I'm still forced to use a broken language to interact with shiny new APIs:<p><a href="https://gist.github.com/4471029" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/4471029</a><p>Then you want me to manipulate binary data with an array implementation <i>this crappy</i>?
I am on the verge of breaking ground on a large-scale corporate project in which WPF/XAML is the tech of choice for UI. I have received criticism for even suggesting that HTML5 is "up to the job" but I feel like this completely validates my point.
Gah, I would pay HN monthly if someone tagged all such links [Best Viewed in Chrome-only] instead of me clicking through and fiddling with various things. As an Opera user, such kind of links are very prevalent on HN.<p>Or maybe it was just my fault for clicking on something with "HTML5" in the title.
So is WebGL part of HTML 5 because Mozilla and Google are implementing it? Would Google Native Client <a href="https://developers.google.com/native-client/overview" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/native-client/overview</a> be part of "HTML5" if Mozilla was implementing it?