If you look at scripd's source code, you cannot really call it "HTML5". It's the same old nested DIVs with absolute positioning and class names such as "only_ie6_border". Plus some CSS3 eye candy. Hard to see why it couldn't have been implemented years ago.
It's not just about HTML5, it's about browser support and speed for the features they use. Browser performance has increased dramatically in the past few years and many people have upgraded to browsers with much better standards support. They still have some hacks, but they can also take advantage of HTML5 when it's available like they do with @font-face.
Google managed. (They've been displaying pdf's using HTML for ages now).
I know it's cool to hype up everything as HTML5 now, like it's something totally new and completely different to anything that went before, but it's not. It's just some extra features that make a few things easier.
They've been displaying pdfs as text for some time but it was very ugly — just enough to quickly see what's inside. “Quick preview” is new feature. They render pdfs but have raw text too for convenient copy/paste.
Google's reader should be much more light and perform faster, esp. in old browsers with slow DOM implementation. The disadvantage of this solution is non-native (for client) text rendering. Also things like embedded video and scripting would not work, but I think Scribd is not supporting those either.
So, not at all the same thing. Whoever downvoted you have some explaining to do.
Comments
I wish they should have listened to everyone who told them how annoying the flash was in the first place, years ago.
All's well though. Here's to hoping this sparks an even bigger movement to be rid of adobe on the web.
I think that years ago the technology wasn't ready to do what they wanted it to do.
If you look at scripd's source code, you cannot really call it "HTML5". It's the same old nested DIVs with absolute positioning and class names such as "only_ie6_border". Plus some CSS3 eye candy. Hard to see why it couldn't have been implemented years ago.
It's not just about HTML5, it's about browser support and speed for the features they use. Browser performance has increased dramatically in the past few years and many people have upgraded to browsers with much better standards support. They still have some hacks, but they can also take advantage of HTML5 when it's available like they do with @font-face.
But that doesn't make a catchy press release.
Google managed. (They've been displaying pdf's using HTML for ages now).
I know it's cool to hype up everything as HTML5 now, like it's something totally new and completely different to anything that went before, but it's not. It's just some extra features that make a few things easier.
Sadly... no.
G has been displaying pdfs as rasterized images. Not at all the same thing.
They've been displaying pdfs as text for some time but it was very ugly — just enough to quickly see what's inside. “Quick preview” is new feature. They render pdfs but have raw text too for convenient copy/paste.
Google's reader should be much more light and perform faster, esp. in old browsers with slow DOM implementation. The disadvantage of this solution is non-native (for client) text rendering. Also things like embedded video and scripting would not work, but I think Scribd is not supporting those either.
So, not at all the same thing. Whoever downvoted you have some explaining to do.
No user cares or even knows that it's an image vs something else. As long as you can select the text etc it's exactly the same.