4 ms·

What's with NYT anti HTML5 agenda?

by lovskogen 17y ago

nlabs 17y ago
They dont want to have to recode all that flash they use
arethuza 17y ago
Why does it have to be an "anti HTML5 agenda"?
- benologist 17y ago
  Because it's not saying what everyone wants to hear aka flash is doomed!!!!
  - nlabs 17y ago
    dont you want flash to be doomed? In 5 years why should the web require a plugin to show video or vector graphics?
    - sid0 17y ago
      > dont you want flash to be doomed? I don't. > In 5 years why should the web require a plugin to show video or vector graphics? It shouldn't, but both your questions seem quite unrelated.
      - nlabs 17y ago
        huh? flash provides video and vector graphics in a browser. If html5 can do these then flash is doomed, hence related.
        sid0 17y ago
        I'd contend that the reason HTML5 actually paid attention to video and vector graphics was that Flash made them popular. I don't want Flash (or equivalent) to die because I want to see even more innovation from them, all of which eventually makes its way to standards.
        nlabs 17y ago
        I'd contend that the reason HTML5 actually paid attention to video and vector graphics was that Flash made them popular. good point. But maybe Adobe should do more to embrace more on open standards than pushing a closed (swf) format.
    - benologist 17y ago
      I love Flash, and the core problems people rant about boil down to crap Adobe can fix. HTML5 has some amazing possibilities ahead of it but none of that eradicates Flash's future. Fantasizing and circlejerking about that possibility is just retarded -plugins fill a void the W3C and browser vendors can't do themselves - and that is keeping up. What are your needs in 5 years and what makes you think HTML5 is somehow perfectly anticipating them? How about 10 years? How about even one year from now? Are you going to upgrade any software at all you use over the next 5 years? Or did they all get it perfect too?
      - pohl 17y ago
        "Adobe can fix" < "Anybody can fix" I've lived in a world where I couldn't access online banking if I was using anything as exotic as Mozilla on Linux. Thankfully, the situation has improved a bit since those days, but I would never want to return to them. Note that today you don't have to stray very far from the mainstream before Adobe stops delivering their plugin. The web should be such that it can be used on innovative platforms without being at the mercy of one CEO who doesn't like another CEO that day, or thinks your FreeBSD or Plan 9 or Haiku are too marginal, or that your CPU instruction set insufficiently ubiquitous.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      > In 5 years why should the web require a plugin For the end user, what's the difference between "require a plugin" and "require a browser"?
      - icefox 17y ago
        Something that requires Windows and something that will run on any random device I can pick up at Fry's.
  - icefox 17y ago
    If they put their fingers in their ears and go 'LALALALALALALA' the problem might go away.

What's with NYT anti HTML5 agenda?

nlabs 17y ago

They dont want to have to recode all that flash they use

arethuza 17y ago

Why does it have to be an "anti HTML5 agenda"?

benologist 17y ago
Because it's not saying what everyone wants to hear aka flash is doomed!!!!
- nlabs 17y ago
  dont you want flash to be doomed? In 5 years why should the web require a plugin to show video or vector graphics?
  - sid0 17y ago
    > dont you want flash to be doomed? I don't. > In 5 years why should the web require a plugin to show video or vector graphics? It shouldn't, but both your questions seem quite unrelated.
    - nlabs 17y ago
      huh? flash provides video and vector graphics in a browser. If html5 can do these then flash is doomed, hence related.
      - sid0 17y ago
        I'd contend that the reason HTML5 actually paid attention to video and vector graphics was that Flash made them popular. I don't want Flash (or equivalent) to die because I want to see even more innovation from them, all of which eventually makes its way to standards.
        nlabs 17y ago
        I'd contend that the reason HTML5 actually paid attention to video and vector graphics was that Flash made them popular. good point. But maybe Adobe should do more to embrace more on open standards than pushing a closed (swf) format.
  - benologist 17y ago
    I love Flash, and the core problems people rant about boil down to crap Adobe can fix. HTML5 has some amazing possibilities ahead of it but none of that eradicates Flash's future. Fantasizing and circlejerking about that possibility is just retarded -plugins fill a void the W3C and browser vendors can't do themselves - and that is keeping up. What are your needs in 5 years and what makes you think HTML5 is somehow perfectly anticipating them? How about 10 years? How about even one year from now? Are you going to upgrade any software at all you use over the next 5 years? Or did they all get it perfect too?
    - pohl 17y ago
      "Adobe can fix" < "Anybody can fix" I've lived in a world where I couldn't access online banking if I was using anything as exotic as Mozilla on Linux. Thankfully, the situation has improved a bit since those days, but I would never want to return to them. Note that today you don't have to stray very far from the mainstream before Adobe stops delivering their plugin. The web should be such that it can be used on innovative platforms without being at the mercy of one CEO who doesn't like another CEO that day, or thinks your FreeBSD or Plan 9 or Haiku are too marginal, or that your CPU instruction set insufficiently ubiquitous.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    > In 5 years why should the web require a plugin For the end user, what's the difference between "require a plugin" and "require a browser"?
    - icefox 17y ago
      Something that requires Windows and something that will run on any random device I can pick up at Fry's.
- icefox 17y ago
  If they put their fingers in their ears and go 'LALALALALALALA' the problem might go away.