[patsu]

My bad. They developed V8 for ARM later:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/

Naturally, no one heard of Cell V8 yet. Would be strange to hide it ! Would love it to be true.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by patsu

My bad. They developed V8 for ARM later:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/

Naturally, no one heard of Cell V8 yet. Would be strange to hide it ! Would love it to be true.

There is nothing on this in any searchable web page. From a business standpoint it must be true. IF HULU wouldn't change their streaming protocol from HTML5 for Microsoft they sure didn't do it for Sony. The HTML5 stream is in a form that is usable/supported by the PS3 since day one and the only thing that would be significantly different about HTML5 support for the PS3 would be javascript and hooks supporting OpenGL video calls for Javascript.

So we CAN say that Firmware 3.5 contained a significant change to the PS3 firmware that allowed WEB applications to reduce in size from 12 - 7 megs each. HTML5 support (Javascript) in the PS3 would do this but we can't confirm.

More speculation/background:

The first PS3 firmware/OS was very crude with few WEB tools in firmware. The Netfront browser did/does not use the PS3 firmware for WEB tools /codecs/javascript and the PS3 OS can not use WEB tools included in Netfront. This results in duplication and a bloated inefficient PS3 firmware. So over the years WEB tools have been added to the PS3 to support WEB applications.

Not to be critical but these tools may not have been optimized or had the talent behind them that the group developing the open source WEBKIT and WEBGL has. With a port of a WEBGL WEBKIT browser to the PS3, WEB routines/codecs/javascript would be added to PS3 firmware and old maybe buggy or inefficient code would be replaced.

New WEBKIT (open source) browsers are designed to add tools to a platforms firmware. Older browsers did not do this, they wouldn't/couldn't because they were not open source. The browser was provided as one large compiled program, an index to routines in the browser was not provided and routines in the browser could not be used without the entire program being loaded into memory. WEBKIT browsers provide a KIT of commonly used web tools separated into useful routines. They become part of the PS3 firmware and can be used by any application.

This new WEBKIT code would not be used by the Netfront browser as it is a stand alone program running on it's own code and WEB tools. So we will not see any changes to how the the Netfront browser works with updated PS3 firmware.

What we may see are bugs disappearing, faster OS code, more efficient use of memory and smaller easier to write WEB applications. This will impact games in that a smaller set of routines rather than the entire Netfront browser may be used to support a web browser inside a game.

The negative impact would be Sony delaying web applications like cross-game-chat and others until after routines that would support it are in the PS3.

And we haven't even touched on Android and the open source library of tools it brings to the PS3. They too are designed like WEBKIT to provide a KIT of tools for the PS3 firmware. These can be used without Android as they are compiled into PS3 machine code and can be added to firmware and indexed.

All this is a massive job and no leaks.......beyond Summitt_sliders comments on the PSN PS3 forum. He heard Sony employees from another division of Sony comment on a timetable for Google-Android-Chrome coming to the PS3 and if HTML5 was in Firmware 3.5 his timetable is accurate to this point.

Of course HTML5 was absolutely needed for Netflix, HULU (Catchup TV announced by Sony almost a year ago), Quriocity, Bravia Internet and more that we don't know about. A new browser is not as much of a priority as the WEB tools it contains.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by jeff_rigby

There is nothing on this in any searchable web page. From a business standpoint it must be true. IF HULU wouldn't change their streaming protocol from HTML5 for Microsoft they sure didn't do it for Sony. The HTML5 stream is in a form that is usable/supported by the PS3 since day one and the only thing that would be significantly different about HTML5 support for the PS3 would be javascript and hooks supporting OpenGL video calls for Javascript.

They don't really need to change much for PS3 because it can use whatever Blu-Ray players are using. Sony maintains the PS3 client. The streaming solution remains the same since they are standard H.264 streams (so called HTML5 streaming). If you read the OP article carefully, the trouble maker is MS's proprietary SmoothStream solution. It may need dedicated servers which Hulu will not cover.

The negative impact would be Sony delaying web applications like cross-game-chat and others until after routines that would support it are in the PS3.

Are you sure cross game chat is a web app ?

All this is a massive job and no leaks.......beyond Summitt_sliders comments on the PSN PS3 forum. He heard Sony employees from another division of Sony comment on a timetable for Google-Android-Chrome coming to the PS3 and if HTML5 was in Firmware 3.5 his timetable is accurate to this point.

Of course HTML5 was absolutely needed for Netflix, HULU (Catchup TV announced by Sony almost a year ago), Quriocity, Bravia Internet and more that we don't know about. A new browser is not as much of a priority as WEB tools.

Would be good if you could post the links to Summitt_sliders' posts.

You may need to define what HTML streaming mean first. Many devices (TV, Blu-Ray players, set top box) can stream from those service providers without a full fledge HTML5 renderer.

It is possible that the OP mixed up HTML5 layout/DOM with HTTP-based H.264 streaming.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by patsu

They don't really need to change much for PS3 because it can use whatever Blu-Ray players are using. Sony maintains the PS3 client. The streaming solution remains the same since they are standard H.264 streams (so called HTML5 streaming). If you read the OP article carefully, the trouble maker is MS's proprietary SmoothStream solution. It may need dedicated servers which Hulu will not cover. That's part of what I am saying.

Are you sure cross game chat is a web app ? How would you define WEB support for multiple Audio streams. In the classic sense of an application from the XMB under video or audio NO.

Would be good if you could post the links to Summitt_sliders' posts. See below

You may need to define what HTML streaming mean first. Many devices (TV, Blu-Ray players, set top box) can stream from those service providers without a full fledge HTML5 renderer. Subtract from HTML5 all HTML4 features and that's my definition. It's not a layout engine and it's not a renderer. That leaves WEB codecs for video and audio, hooks for Javascript to manipulate the tagged video stream and more. The keys are dynamic updating and Javascript.

It is possible that the OP mixed up HTML5 layout/DOM with HTTP-based H.264 streaming.

Confusion yes. What HTML5 allows that is NEW is what we are talking about. It's not HTML layout/DOM but the features put into HTML5 that can be called by applications (not a browser with HTML layout/DOM) OUTSIDE a browser to do what we see in HULU, Netflix and MLB. Javascript is the KEY and the hooks in HTML5 provided for Javascript are NEW.

Summit_slider link:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/t5/P...5670881/page/2 Message 13

[patsu]

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Usi...deo_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by patsu

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Usi...deo_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

I don't see anything in your links supporting your contention.

That said, it looks like Netfront just came out with a new browser version that has partial HTML5 and javascript support:

http://www.access-company.com/produc...ppliances.html

[New in NetFront Browser v4.1]

High Speed JavaScript Engine
[Supported Standards]
Compliant with the OMA Browsing 2.3 specification


[Markup]
cHTML, HTML 5 (Partial), HTML 4.01, XHTML1.1, XHTML Mobile Profile 1.2, WML 1.3, SMIL 2.1, RSS feed (RSS 0.9/0.91/0.92/1.0/2.0, Atom 0.3/1.0)
.
.
.
.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by patsu

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Usi...deo_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

Yes....this is why confirming WEBKIT (HTML5 and Javascript) will be difficult. It's possible to do this with custom code. It was done with custom code before 3.5. AFTER firmware 3.5 new versions of the applications shrink from 7-12 megs in size. WHY? What web tool(s) of 7 megs size could be in the custom application that is not needed after 3.5 or rather supplied by calls to PS3 firmware? Why did Netflix wait for 3.5 to release their application. Netflix director of WEB development specified HTML 5 and dynamic user interfaces.

We are back to the start of the discussion. Occam's razorr applies here. The simplest explanation is a new WEBKIT browser is being ported to the PS3 and is partially active.

The arguments I'm getting for the most part center around "it's Sony" IF I said Apple ported HTML5 to the iOS handhelds would I get the same arguments? GOOGLE is the difference, they want 38 million more users for their services and are providing Sony with code and probably programmers.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

I don't see anything in your links supporting your contention.

I am just saying a HTML4 or HTML5 frontend should not be too different from each other *if* the requirements are just for video streaming with a simple UI. The HTML5 specs in those links are already implemented in HTML4 in the form of plugins today.

At this point, I think the iOS video clients are mostly native apps. They may use WebKit in the app, but I am not sure if they use it throughout. Will check with Apple developers. The Blu-ray players and TVs are either Java + simple HTML, or native apps.

That said, it looks like Netfront just came out with a new browser version that has partial HTML5 and javascript support:

http://www.access-company.com/produc...ppliances.html

Yap, it's under trial until November. We'll see if Sony release something by then. We posted the same link in a related thread.

EDIT:
jeff_rigby, it is said that NetFlix signed an exclusive deal with MS that expires near end of this year.

As for the shrink in HDD footprint for Hulu, I have no idea why. It is also possible that Sony improved the web browser enough (e.g., stablize the JavaScript) that they felt comfortable to use it. It may or may not be HTML5 though. The full HTML5 specs include local database support, sophisticated animations, etc (e.g., implement a Flash game). We have not seen any conclusive evidence of HTML5 on PS3 yet thoough.



I should be able to check out Hulu Plus from Home tonight. Couldn't do so yesterday because it was activated on my office PS3. Need to wait 24 hours to use it at home.

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by patsu

I am just saying a HTML4 or HTML5 frontend should not be too different from each other *if* the requirements are just for video streaming with a simple UI. The HTML5 specs in those links are already implemented in HTML4 in the form of plugins today.

At this point, I think the iOS video clients are mostly native apps. They may use WebKit in the app, but I am not sure if they use it throughout. Will check with Apple developers. The Blu-ray players and TVs are either Java + simple HTML, or native apps.



Yap, it's under trial until November. We'll see if Sony release something by then. We posted the same link in a related thread.

EDIT:
jeff_rigby, it is said that NetFlix signed an exclusive deal with MS that expires near end of this year.

As for the shrink in HDD footprint for Hulu, I have no idea why. It is also possible that Sony improved the web browser enough (e.g., stablize the JavaScript) that they felt comfortable to use it. It may or may not be HTML5 though. The full HTML5 specs include local database support, sophisticated animations, etc (e.g., implement a Flash game). We have not seen any conclusive evidence of HTML5 on PS3 yet thoough.



I should be able to check out Hulu Plus from Home tonight. Couldn't do so yesterday because it was activated on my office PS3. Need to wait 24 hours to use it at home.

Hey, I defer to you on this as you're more up-to-date than me on this. I was just saying your links didn't provide any support.

As to Jeff_rigby's occam razor's contention, I'd say occam's razor would point to the Netfront upgrade and not a separate webkit. Personally I find this disappointing as I just don't like the look-n-feel of the Netfront browser and was hoping that Sony was using their current good position with the PSP EOLing, PS+, and 4 yrs of sub par performance from Netfront to introduce/switch to a new browser. At the very least put pressure on them to properly update the browser. It doesn't look like that's happening though.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

Hey, I defer to you on this as you're more up-to-date than me on this. I was just saying your links didn't provide any support.

I implemented a video streaming web plugin before, complete with DOM event support. ^_^
HTML5 is powerful but at this stage, it is still possible to implement a simple web app using HTML4 + a standard video plugin.

See archie4os's post:

Originally Posted by archie4oz

Well HTML5 just gives you the <video> tag now, however the bulk of the work is handled by javascript, CSS and the media playback abilities of the browser or OS. Personally I don't think it's all that big of a deal since both (PS3 and Xbox) are closed platforms anyways. However in the case of the PS3, anybody *can* target it since it does have a browser (of dubious qualities, but sites can be optimized for it) plus it does support Flash.

HTML5 will become a bigger deal with quick rollout and update of sophisticated content. For videos, the cheats happen inside the video streaming tech, not in HTML5. For simple animation and layout, JavaScript and CSS can be done in HTML4 also.

In general, HTML5 is more than <video> tag though.

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by patsu

I implemented a video streaming web plugin before, complete with DOM event support. ^_^
HTML5 is powerful but at this stage, it is still possible to implement a simple web app using HTML4 + a standard video plugin.

See archie4os's post:



HTML5 will become a bigger deal with quick rollout and update of sophisticated content. For videos, the cheats happen inside the video streaming tech, not in HTML5. For simple animation and layout, JavaScript and CSS can be done in HTML4 also.

In general, HTML5 is more than <video> tag though.

Yep, was going to mention that archie4oz would be our best source on this subject. As he notes, it's the javascript that's doing the heavy lifting and if the new Netfront browser is 20x faster in this regard then that's a major improvement. I still don't like the look-n-feel though which has not improved one bit, it's still a mobile browser running on what is in essense a lite PC.

[patsu]

He's essentially saying there is no difference between HTML4 and 5 other than the video tag (for streaming apps). As long as there is a robust JavaScript engine, it doesn't really matter if HTML5 is there for a simple app. It will be more apparent if the app requires a local SQL database (via JavaScript) for example.

The media playback capability of the device matters the most for a video streaming app. The media control interfaces are just simple buttons and layers. The DOM events can be passed in HTML4 plugins today.

The other important aspect would be media search. It should be a server feature unless they store the entire video library index locally.

They can do all of the client interaction in HTML4 or HTML5. It's not a big difference either way at the moment for a simple streaming app.

EDIT: Yeah, AppleTV's NetFlix app is native, not HTML5. Just like the iPhone and iPad ones (Meeting Apple dudes for lunch). IMHO, the video service providers may very well switch to HTML5 to build their apps, but there is no rush for them to do so if these apps have already been deployed. The real content is delivered by the video streaming tech. As long as MS uses the same streaming tech as the other companies, they should be fine.

OTOH, it would be cool if we have HTML5 web browser in XMB though. For general web surfing, HTML5 compliant layout will make a HUGE difference.

[jeff_rigby]

This needs to be deleted.

[patsu]

Wiring up video streams in HTML5 (video tag) or HTML4 (object tag) is similar in effort -- as long as the platform already has media playback capabilities.

I am not sure about mandating full HTML5 support in ESPN. They probably only use a subset. As I mentioned, many devices can only deliver a partial HTML5 experience. Besides Xbox 360, there are also other devices that they will need to support.

At the end of the day, it comes down to user experience and cost. If they have already achieved both using other (similar) technologies, the business people may not want to incur additional switching cost. If it's a new partner, then yes, they can work out a new arrangement. Standardizing on some level of HTML5 is a good idea.

The bulk of the cost is server maintenance. As long as the providers (e.g. ESPN3) don't have to foot additional cost here, I think the rest is negotiable. Afterall, the client development can be funded and maintained by someone else (e.g., MS).


For general Internet surfing where this is no clear lead or closed group negotiation, then HTML5 will bring tremendous value.

The Apple folks only told me about AppleTV. For NetFlix, we already know it works on simple HTML parser in the Blu-ray specs. So they should be receptive to this form of collaboration too.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by patsu

He's essentially saying there is no difference between HTML4 and 5 other than the video tag (for streaming apps). As long as there is a robust JavaScript engine, it doesn't really matter if HTML5 is there for a simple app. It will be more apparent if the app requires a local SQL database (via JavaScript) for example.
.

And where is the Javascript engine? I do not believe you can use the Netfront Javascript outside the browser. It is my belief that the larger applications pre 3.5 firmware contained a javascript engine. After 3.5 it's in the PS3.

[patsu]

HTML5 does not mandate an external JavaScript engine. You can run JavaScript in a standalone language runtime in HTML4 also.

If firmware 3.5 provides a standalone JavaScript run-time for other apps to use, it'd be good news. May be PS Home can use it too since they tried to use Java in a never released version.

EDIT: The HTML5 JavaScript API is more advanced (e.g., supports drag and drop, local cache, 2D graphics, ability to play audio and video, cross document messaging, etc.) but in HTML4, you can call plugin APIs to perform specific functions, like play/pause video, and manipulate HTML elements too.

We know at this point that some video providers like NetFlix support multiple devices and clients. We can't say if they want existing clients to switch. The Blu-ray players use Java to render 2D graphics, basic HTML to layout the UI, and H.264 to stream the videos. AppleTV uses native code. I have no idea what PS3 uses but it's difficult to conclude that HTML5 is the only approach at this point. It could be, but we need more evidence (or someone should leak 3.50 SDK )

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by jeff_rigby

You can kludge a HTML5 work alike with much effort or you can use HTML5 and easily write an application..

Huh? So the addition of Canvas and a native Video tag somehow make you able to "easily write an application?".

At the end of the day, you're talking about Javascript.

To "easily make an application", you need a decent framework, a good IDE, that sort of thing. HTML5 brings none of this.

If true, this is nothing more than capitalizing on a marketing buzzword. There's no practical reason to be touting a "HTML 5" application, other than exciting gullible consumers.

[scooby_dooby]

(e.g., supports drag and drop, local cache, 2D graphics, ability to play audio and video, cross document messaging, etc.)

All of which sounds totally appealing for a console based experience....NOT!

(I know you know.)

[patsu]

It might ! Like creating a 2D Home UI.

Other examples may include:

* Standard compliant web browser

* APIs/mashups for integrating with game servers. Titles like Killzone, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, LBP, Xi (Playstation Home), and more have their own web portals. By integrating the web experiences into XMB or even the lobby, the users can hook up with the communities better. It's probably easier to evolve the web experiences based on the communities' needs than to update a native app.

If designed properly, something like PS Home can integrate all these game communities consistently together because they are all HTML5 based. e.g., Have a trophy or virtual items HTML5 app for betting, exchange, etc.


As a standalone app development platform, HTML5 is good but may not fully realize its potentials.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by patsu

It might ! Like creating a 2D Home UI.

Other examples may include:

* Standard compliant web browser

* APIs/mashups for integrating with game servers. Titles like Killzone, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, LBP, Xi (Playstation Home), and more have their own web portals. By integrating the web experiences into XMB or even the lobby, the users can hook up with the communities better. It's probably easier to evolve the web experiences based on the communities' needs than to update a native app.

If designed properly, something like PS Home can integrate all these game communities consistently together because they are all HTML5 based. e.g., Have a trophy or virtual items HTML5 app for betting, exchange, etc.


As a standalone app development platform, HTML5 is good but may not fully realize its potentials.

Agreed, HTML5 acceptance by users is needed to drive web development. IF Google is providing the browser/code all 38 million PS3s will be HTML5 compliant.

Example: The following is a Slideshow with a demo of HTML5 features with source code

http://slides.html5rocks.com/#slide1

But you must be using a HTML5 browser to view it! Geo-location tools and Google earth implemented with three lines of code and Video with a few lines.

The PS3s would then become a platform to demonstrate HTML5 and Google services. 38 million HTML5 browsers will drive WEB Development.

RE: Netfront to upgrade the PS3 browser; unlikely as support for 3-D will be in the browser; quote of Sony;"3-D from a browser within a year" and that was 5-6 months ago. YouTube (Google) is displaying 3-D and Google will support it with their browser.

And it's another indication that work on a new browser is on-going, 6-7 more months and we will have a browser that can support 3-D (probably less).

Tools from a WEB-KIT can be used to support WEB applications....I believe 3.5 contained a partially active/partially completed WEBGL WEBKIT so that HTML5 tools could be used for WEB Apps. A WEBKIT browser not HTML5 is the big news, it provides a kit of WEB tools that can be used as is, it does not have to be complete before use. HTML5 just makes it easier to write a web streaming application. But HTML5 comes with a modern webkit browser so proving one implies the other.

patsu touched on what HTML5 would give to PS3 applications like Home but not what WEBKIT provides. The biggest is that the entire browser does not need to load to support WEB features in a game, only the routines needed.

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by patsu

It might ! Like creating a 2D Home UI.

Other examples may include:

* Standard compliant web browser

* APIs/mashups for integrating with game servers. Titles like Killzone, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, LBP, Xi (Playstation Home), and more have their own web portals. By integrating the web experiences into XMB or even the lobby, the users can hook up with the communities better. It's probably easier to evolve the web experiences based on the communities' needs than to update a native app.

If designed properly, something like PS Home can integrate all these game communities consistently together because they are all HTML5 based. e.g., Have a trophy or virtual items HTML5 app for betting, exchange, etc.


As a standalone app development platform, HTML5 is good but may not fully realize its potentials.

I thought we were talking about a video streaming application?

And I'm not sure it would be easier to manage a web experience, rather than update a native app. In fact, I'm almost positive it would be much more of a headache.

@Jeff - You are suffering from some major confusion. WebKit does not provide a framework for developing applicaitons, nor does OpenGL have anything to do with enabling application development.

Where are you getting this stuff?

It really doesn't matter how many consoles support HTML5, you are still going to have 40% of users on IE8 or less. Clients can't commit to using Javascript/Canavs without some sort of Flash based fallback, and that will be the case for years. And all that does is double (or quadruple) their budget. For what?

The budget of any Javascript based application would likely be at least 3x the equivalent flash/flex project. And in today's current landscape, you would have to do both, if you want to reach everyone.

I know, for whatever reason, some people are in love with "HTML 5", just like "Web 2.0" from a couple years ago. But can we retain some semblance of reality here?

[patsu]

The advantages of a web environment are easier user generated content management (for community development) because you can rely on existing legal, security and user practices. The common run-time also allows easier cross integration if designed well. Yeah, we are talking about streaming video, for some apps, the line may blur a little (e.g., watching clan replays).

I am also wondering if we can do a GaiKai type of environment e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y.

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by patsu

The advantages of a web environment are easier user generated content management (for community development) because you can rely on existing legal, security and user practices. Then common run-time also allows easier cross integration if designed well. Yeah, we are talking about streaming video, for some apps, the line may blur a little (e.g., watching clan replays).

I am also wondering if we can do a GaiKai type of environment e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y.

Well you mentioned integrating multiple web portals, using HTML5 API's. This would introduce a ton of external dependencies, with 3rd parties using bleeding edge API's and technologies. Sounds like a headache to me.

I'd think a native app, the integrates with existing portal api's would be much more smooth to both setup and maintain.

[patsu]

Yeah, a closed portal is definitely cleaner and easier to run. A HTML5 client may be easier to evolve compared to a native client, even for a closed portal.

When I bring up integrating multiple game portals, it'd be for a common game platform like Home. Today, each space and mini-games are downloaded as a native client module. They are very rigid. It should be possible to bring in say, a KZ2 "portlet" into Home for some of these game promo spaces --especially a 2D version. They should save the resources for building/running static 3D buildings for more useful services and UI.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

I thought we were talking about a video streaming application?

The original thrust of the discussion I started was how to determine if a WEBGL WEBKIT browser was being ported to the PS3 and parts of the HTML5 and/or Javascript webkit active in the PS3 after Firmware update 3.5.

Recently HULU, MLB and Netflix have provided applications for the PS3 and they all state that they are using HTML5. The day after PS3 firmware 3.5 all (except Netflix which was released the day of 3.5) applications required updates that reduced the size of the application 7-12 megs each. My belief is that a javascript engine was in the stand alone HULU and MLB applications pre 3.5 and the updated applications now use a javascript engine provided by PS3 firmware update 3.5 and it may be a Google V8 engine.

Webkit browsers are new and all support HTML5. Most handhelds and the PS3 will use a WEBGL webkit browser. The Xbox now supports HTML5. This is the reason why HTML5 was chosen by HULU, NETFLIX, ESPN3, MLB......

BUT how to prove HTML5 or WEBKIT is being ported to the PS3?