5 ms·

Wow. that chart is misleading. They consider "No Digital Rights Information" to be a high risk factor. Bias much? And it's not even correct, with plugins with

by kefka 10y ago

Wow. that chart is misleading. They consider "No Digital Rights Information" to be a high risk factor. Bias much? And it's not even correct, with plugins with PDFs. They can have DRM junk encrusted on them.

dispose13432 10y ago
HTML is supported by only one vendor? Which one? Firefox or Chromium-WebKit or Explorer?
- kefka 10y ago
  Errr, Edge? Very much, but this chart, and I would say the article is pretty much complete garbage. Yes, we collectively should save Flash content for its posterity of the older web. But that's a big thing for Archive.org to handle. And I'm sure we can construct a VM to download and use flash content. The only gotcha there, is content that streams from a remote server. The VM would likely be without any networking support, to prevent easily hacked machines (the major reason why we collectively dumped flash).
- mishac 10y ago
  WHATWG maybe? Also HTML is apparently more complex than JPEG and MP3. I'll remember that next time I"m hand-coding some audio files and using a machine to generate HTML.
  - lpr22 10y ago
    This chart is so nonesense. HTML is deprecated? Really? And how is having more versions a higher risk of obsolescence, but having /multiple specifications/ reduces risk?
sitharus 10y ago
And HTML has website: no That killed all credibility that table has.
vdnkh 10y ago
And it's wrong too. Clearkey, Widevine, and Playready are all video DRMs in HTML5. Also, EMEs exist in all major browsers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_Media_Extensions_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_M...
microcolonel 10y ago
This table seems like a load of crap to me. Perhaps especially the "supporting apps" section. Despite the fact that it's supported in nearly every application which supports image files, they list "21", whereas they say "164" for doc! Also, they list HTML as "outdated or deprecated", and they say that doc is not a complex format; they are out of their minds. Also, they say "SXW (OpenOffice documents)" even though StarOffice had switched to Open Document Foundation formats before they were branded Oracle Open Office. Almost everything these "researchers" needed to know to discredit their own paper can be read on Wikipedia with little to no effort. Almost every value on this chart ranges from bogus to infuriating.

by kefka 10y ago

dispose13432 10y ago

HTML is supported by only one vendor? Which one? Firefox or Chromium-WebKit or Explorer?

kefka 10y ago
Errr, Edge? Very much, but this chart, and I would say the article is pretty much complete garbage. Yes, we collectively should save Flash content for its posterity of the older web. But that's a big thing for Archive.org to handle. And I'm sure we can construct a VM to download and use flash content. The only gotcha there, is content that streams from a remote server. The VM would likely be without any networking support, to prevent easily hacked machines (the major reason why we collectively dumped flash).
mishac 10y ago
WHATWG maybe? Also HTML is apparently more complex than JPEG and MP3. I'll remember that next time I"m hand-coding some audio files and using a machine to generate HTML.
- lpr22 10y ago
  This chart is so nonesense. HTML is deprecated? Really? And how is having more versions a higher risk of obsolescence, but having /multiple specifications/ reduces risk?

sitharus 10y ago

And HTML has website: no That killed all credibility that table has.

vdnkh 10y ago

And it's wrong too. Clearkey, Widevine, and Playready are all video DRMs in HTML5. Also, EMEs exist in all major browsers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_Media_Extensions_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_M...

microcolonel 10y ago

This table seems like a load of crap to me. Perhaps especially the "supporting apps" section. Despite the fact that it's supported in nearly every application which supports image files, they list "21", whereas they say "164" for doc! Also, they list HTML as "outdated or deprecated", and they say that doc is not a complex format; they are out of their minds. Also, they say "SXW (OpenOffice documents)" even though StarOffice had switched to Open Document Foundation formats before they were branded Oracle Open Office. Almost everything these "researchers" needed to know to discredit their own paper can be read on Wikipedia with little to no effort. Almost every value on this chart ranges from bogus to infuriating.