3 ms·

If Flash were standing on the same RFC-based ground that TCP is (Jon Postel was speaking of a principle that implementations of TCP should do) then Dave might h

by pohl 16y ago

If Flash were standing on the same RFC-based ground that TCP is (Jon Postel was speaking of a principle that implementations of TCP should do) then Dave might have a point. Heck, I'll be generous and say that Dave might have a point if he were referring to an independent implementation of Flash, and what it ought do. But mobile Safari is not a flash runtime, it's a web browser, and so its duty to the robustness principle is to be strict about what it sends (HTTP GETs and POSTs) and permissive about what it receives (HTTP responses, HTML/CSS/Javascript documents). It is no more obligated to include a Flash plugin than it is to have a plugin for Iterated Fractal Systems image compressor. I think it's worth noting that there's an important class of software that needs to be strict about what they receive — compilers — and I often find myself wishing that browsers were more like compilers. But that's just when I get sour thinking about the excessive permissiveness of IE.

brilliant 16y ago
That's utter nonsense. Postel's Law doesn't say anything about that. You're just making it up.
- pohl 16y ago
  Of course he didn't specifically mention mobile safari. That's why it's a "principle": it applies to other situations too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postels_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postels_law If anything, websites that depend upon Flash are "defective implementation that send non-conforming messages".
radley 16y ago
Comparing the scope, history, and benefits of Flash to a fractal compressor is childish. It's posts like this than make HN look like a bunch of techno-babbling trolls. "Supporting plug-ins" is clearly a well-tested and marketed phrase to divert attention from the real issue: a business blockade. Only the weakest (or most biased) of programmers fall for it.
- pohl 16y ago
  That's a lot to digest: childish && (week || biased) && troll? Is this subject really worth that much vitriol? On what basis is a browser author obligated to support any plugin system whatsoever? I don't want an answer as to why Apple must...I want to know why any arbitrary browser vendor, in your world, should not be free to make that product decision. Edit: I submit that if you cannot answer that question, having removed Apple from the equation, that it is not me who is biased.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - radley 16y ago
    It's not your terminology that I found childish & trollish; it was the comparison of Flash to a fractal generator along with an all-too-obvious deviation from the original point, i.e. a straw man* It's not a lack of plugin support that prevents Flash from working on iOS. It's strictly business rules (which was the point of the article). Your first comment makes hay over the former and your second comment dismisses the latter. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

by pohl 16y ago

brilliant 16y ago

That's utter nonsense. Postel's Law doesn't say anything about that. You're just making it up.

pohl 16y ago
Of course he didn't specifically mention mobile safari. That's why it's a "principle": it applies to other situations too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postels_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postels_law If anything, websites that depend upon Flash are "defective implementation that send non-conforming messages".

radley 16y ago

Comparing the scope, history, and benefits of Flash to a fractal compressor is childish. It's posts like this than make HN look like a bunch of techno-babbling trolls. "Supporting plug-ins" is clearly a well-tested and marketed phrase to divert attention from the real issue: a business blockade. Only the weakest (or most biased) of programmers fall for it.

pohl 16y ago
That's a lot to digest: childish && (week || biased) && troll? Is this subject really worth that much vitriol? On what basis is a browser author obligated to support any plugin system whatsoever? I don't want an answer as to why Apple must...I want to know why any arbitrary browser vendor, in your world, should not be free to make that product decision. Edit: I submit that if you cannot answer that question, having removed Apple from the equation, that it is not me who is biased.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- radley 16y ago
  It's not your terminology that I found childish & trollish; it was the comparison of Flash to a fractal generator along with an all-too-obvious deviation from the original point, i.e. a straw man* It's not a lack of plugin support that prevents Flash from working on iOS. It's strictly business rules (which was the point of the article). Your first comment makes hay over the former and your second comment dismisses the latter. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."