4 ms·
My concern would be this: 1) Flash is prevalent today. No matter how much people are bashing it on HN, its widely used especially on the sites which are incre
by campnic 16y ago
My concern would be this:
1) Flash is prevalent today. No matter how much people are bashing it on HN, its widely used especially on the sites which are incredibly popular.
2) HTML5 adoption will be slow. Look at how long it to ie6 to die and you'll have an idea of how long it will take html5 to become prevalent.
3) You're taking a technology that allows you to be accessible today and trading it for a technology which will allow you to be accessible at some unknown time in the future, basically removing any barrier to entry for your competitors.
The hyperbole makes this seem worse then it is, I'm sure. You don't really have motivation to ditch your current flash implementation. You'll just put it into a "support as needed" mode.
- pytxab 16y agoAs the article points out, they are only using parts of HTML5 that are supported by older browsers, including IE6.
- jarek 16y agoHTML5 must be some kind of wundertechnology. Reached draft in 2008, supported on browsers released in 2001. Come on, it's great that they're ditching Flash, but if it really works on IE6 calling it "HTML5" is nothing but link/pageview-bait. The parts of HTML5 that are supported by IE6 are called HTML4 and Javascript.
- pytxab 16y agoActually, browsers often implement features that aren't in a standard, just because they think it's a good idea. Some of those end up being memorialized by the W3C and part of HTML. Many of the features of HTML5 started that way, including, in this case, web fonts (part of CSS3).