4 ms·
The real question is: why? Besides being free of Flash, there aren't a lot of benefits that will result in a better end-user experience or competitive advantag
by danielrhodes 17y ago
The real question is: why?
Besides being free of Flash, there aren't a lot of benefits that will result in a better end-user experience or competitive advantage. The only thing I could think of is trying to get away from H264, which could present some licensing issues at the end of the year.
- aurora72 17y agoThat's right: There will not be many benefits on the user experience side. But there will be a remarkable amount of benefit on the developer's side, I estimate. And it's not just the <video> I'm talking about. In the long run, the front-end as a whole will benefit greatly from the easy addibility of visual, audio and video elements into the web pages. It might offer competitive advantages to those who will make use of it efficiently. How many times have I heard that smart question: "hmm but can you make Flash apps?" Flash has been the only way to design the so called "rich Internet applications" and I've been rejecting to learn Flash for years with an expectation that something better would come up, and that thing has finally come up. JavaScript yes, ActionScript no, thanks.
- jdowdell 17y agoCheck into it more. The tagging, alone....
- danielrhodes 17y agoWell yes and no. While you won't be locked into Flash, HTML5 still doesn't give you all the same benefits and features so you're stuck with a weird middle ground that benefits nobody. As a result, I think most developers will stick with Flash.