4 ms·
And ActiveX worked fine with Internet Explorer on Windows. We look back and consider that a bad thing for the web, how is this different?
by callalex 9y ago
And ActiveX worked fine with Internet Explorer on Windows. We look back and consider that a bad thing for the web, how is this different?
- kllrnohj 9y agoSession history management APIs are a W3C standard supported by all major browsers. This is nothing like activex.
- oneweekwonder 9y agoThere no compatibility info on MDN[0] for mobile devices? [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/History_API#AutoCompatibilityTable https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/History_API...
- SquareWheel 9y agoUh, because it's an open standard rather than a proprietary one?
- oneweekwonder 9y agoAnd we are standardizing the benefits activex could give us. So no need for it anymore ;) https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ edit: I can see it. Next iteration you will need a AMP key to publish your content and clients will need AMP key to consume content! Browsers that don't include the key will be excluded from the ampweb.
- pjmlp 9y agoI am waiting for the joy of using an open standard (WebAssembly) to deliver us back the joys of Flash, Java and Silverlight plugins.
- bla2 9y agoActiveX meant downloading and running arbitrary binary native code. This is about supporting a small-scope standardized JS API.