3 ms·

Delivering a cross platform environment that provides the same functionality with more features. Don't get me wrong here, the first sentence may sound as Flash

by buster 17y ago

Delivering a cross platform environment that provides the same functionality with more features. Don't get me wrong here, the first sentence may sound as Flash "fanboyism", but i think it is rather objective. Let me explain: - Flash Apps work on Windows/MacOSX/Linux/smartphones/tablets with the exact same API and no difference in implementation of that API (in contrast to IE/Webkit/Opera/Firefox that implement different features and even differ in details when it comes to the implementation of HTML5/CSS3) - Flash offers additional APIs that are not available in HTML5 (Webcam access for example) - taking this further, Air enables cross platform installers, integration into the OS, even more APIs And this can be explained really good, because Adobe can implement new features much faster than HTML standard committees can agree on new HTML features (plus a variety browsers that need to support those). So this shouldn't surprise anyone. It's wishful thinking when people claim that HTML5 can replace Flash in _every_ regard (and here i mean 100% alternative, which can't be true if you just take the webcam access). HTML5 can replace the majority of todays Flash applications. At least i can't think of many web sites that depend on Flash that wouldn't be possible with HTML5 (Websites that make use of Webcams being one of them). And i hope all those navigational elements, advertisings and whatever people chose Flash for, will be replaced with proper HTML in the future! To implement a full fledged multimedia website is harder with HTML5 than with Flash, imo (think of cross browser compliance and difference in performance between browsers). Just to make my standpoint clear: I would not create a website with Flash nowadays, even if it means less effort. HTML5 is for the web. Flash should die. The "fact" that it can be extremely difficult to create those web sites remains, though. Regarding the article: Am i missing something or isn't this just another JS-framework? There are already hundreds of them out there, why is this labeled as "Flash alternative"? Unless i am missing a point this looks like nothing fundamentally new. Seen in the light of the headline every JS-framework is a Flash alternative.

derefr 17y ago
It seems like the majority of things people use Flash for, then, could be replaced with a cross-browser plug-in that exposes a unified API for accessing resources outside the browser (i.e. webcams, microphones, whatever Air does, etc.) from Javascript, and is updated by some process quicker than a web standards committee—a "Cool New Thing engine" of sorts. If it allowed browsers to override its features with their own, each feature could "graduate" from the plug-in's codebase when it became implemented natively by all browsers.
- buster 17y ago
  So to get rid of the Flash plugin you are proposing a new plugin which is not a HTML standard. Who is supposed to write such a plugin and how would it differ from Flash, then? Chrome Frame comes to my mind, this covers IE6,7,8 but not Firefox. May be a good candidate, but Chrome Frame has been around for a while now, and i haven't heard of web sites using it. Chrome Frame could lead the way to "one standard implementation of HTML5" which could at least eliminate some of the major pain (performance and cross browser differences). It's a nice thought, but somehow i have my doubts about Chrome Frame becoming that popular. Too much politics in the browser war. Also, many enterprises don't allow users to install that, which in turn makes it a no go for most web sites.
  - derefr 17y ago
    I'm suggesting, I think, that Adobe drop the current "target" of their flash plug-in as a client-side embedded viewing frame for a special filetype that's actually an executable running in a proprietary VM, and just make it into said plug-in, basically a support framework for browsers. Expose everything that's currently exposed to Actionscript to Javascript instead, in other words. It's not something that Adobe would ever want to do—but it might be something they eventually will be forced into, after they realize no one is really using Flash all that much any more.
    - benologist 17y ago
      That bridge already exists ... Flash and JavaScript can communicate with each other and in the form you're describing - http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/latest/demo-01.htm http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/latest/demo-01.htm will use OGG if it can or MP3+Flash behind HTML/JS/CSS.
  - statictype 17y ago
    I'm skeptical about Chrome Frame's adoption. It sounds like just a way to trick IE users into using Chrome. If they wanted the benefits of Chrome, why not just run Chrome in the first place?
- 17y ago

by buster 17y ago

derefr 17y ago

It seems like the majority of things people use Flash for, then, could be replaced with a cross-browser plug-in that exposes a unified API for accessing resources outside the browser (i.e. webcams, microphones, whatever Air does, etc.) from Javascript, and is updated by some process quicker than a web standards committee—a "Cool New Thing engine" of sorts. If it allowed browsers to override its features with their own, each feature could "graduate" from the plug-in's codebase when it became implemented natively by all browsers.

buster 17y ago
So to get rid of the Flash plugin you are proposing a new plugin which is not a HTML standard. Who is supposed to write such a plugin and how would it differ from Flash, then? Chrome Frame comes to my mind, this covers IE6,7,8 but not Firefox. May be a good candidate, but Chrome Frame has been around for a while now, and i haven't heard of web sites using it. Chrome Frame could lead the way to "one standard implementation of HTML5" which could at least eliminate some of the major pain (performance and cross browser differences). It's a nice thought, but somehow i have my doubts about Chrome Frame becoming that popular. Too much politics in the browser war. Also, many enterprises don't allow users to install that, which in turn makes it a no go for most web sites.
- derefr 17y ago
  I'm suggesting, I think, that Adobe drop the current "target" of their flash plug-in as a client-side embedded viewing frame for a special filetype that's actually an executable running in a proprietary VM, and just make it into said plug-in, basically a support framework for browsers. Expose everything that's currently exposed to Actionscript to Javascript instead, in other words. It's not something that Adobe would ever want to do—but it might be something they eventually will be forced into, after they realize no one is really using Flash all that much any more.
  - benologist 17y ago
    That bridge already exists ... Flash and JavaScript can communicate with each other and in the form you're describing - http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/latest/demo-01.htm http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/latest/demo-01.htm will use OGG if it can or MP3+Flash behind HTML/JS/CSS.
- statictype 17y ago
  I'm skeptical about Chrome Frame's adoption. It sounds like just a way to trick IE users into using Chrome. If they wanted the benefits of Chrome, why not just run Chrome in the first place?
17y ago