4 ms·

Indeed ( https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/commits/master https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/commits/master ). But looking at the codebase (10000 commits, test

Indeed ( https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/commits/master https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/commits/master ). But looking at the codebase (10000 commits, tests), maybe there's hope it's pushed again someday? Mozilla pulled the same compatibility-via-JS-runtime trick for PDF, but SWF must be even tougher, and there's probably less demand. Maybe Archive.org (who have recently been helping JS emulation projects like JS MESS and JS DOSBox) will someday be interested in providing support and visibility?

userbinator 10y ago
Actually, having worked with both PDF and SWF (and software for converting between them...), they're both complex formats in different ways, although I personally think SWF is slightly easier to parse; PDF is a weird pseudo-textual format that includes elements of PostScript and interactive features via embedded JS, while SWF is conceptually much simpler to parse and its graphics are also simpler, but its interactivity model is more complex. Converting graphics from SWF to SVG is an easy demonstration of just how inefficient XML-based formats are. We just don't notice (most of the time) because of computing power.
bobajeff 10y ago
I guess they could always emulate a machine with Flash Player installed on it. Outside of that it looks like it's up to Adobe to make a Flash runtime for the Web: https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=4178275 https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=4178275