4 ms·

Why not drop Flash too?

Pewpewarrows 16y ago
You clearly haven't read the article. Flash is a sandboxed plugin running alongside the browser. It's not the internals of a new and heatedly debated HTML tag, which ultimately has to be an open standard and format, and supported until HTML6 comes around in another decade. Choosing to drop experimental support for a closed, proprietary, and royalty-encumbered codec in a tag's specification that hasn't even been finalized by the W3C yet isn't even in the same universe as dropping support for an external plugin.
- podperson 16y ago
  How is supporting arbitrary codecs via the <video> tag any different from supporting arbitrary fonts through CSS font-family?
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Supporting arbitrary codecs is more like supporting arbitrary font formats. Each separate codec uses its own (potentially vastly) different way of encoding video, and requires its own code to handle. Using the operating system facilities is too risky from a security standpoint (such as if someone finds an exploitable bug in the ancient Indeo codec).
memetichazard 16y ago
Can't drop something you didn't have in the first place. As many have argued, it's disingenuous to treat Flash and the H.264 as being equal in this argument. One of these would be implemented into the browser rather than a plugin. One of these would incur a royalty cost. One of these has viable alternatives.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  From http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/google-chrome-flash/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/google-chrome-flash/ Google Chrome Now Comes With Flash Built In 391 View Comments Robin Wauters Jun 25, 2010 Last March, Adobe and Google jointly announced that Flash Player would soon come built in to the latter’s Chrome browser, eliminating the need for users to download, install and update it separately.
andylei 16y ago
sure. not sure how this is relevant tho. if dropping h.264 is a good thing, then Google should drop it. kind of irrelevant whether it also does or does not drop Flash.

You clearly haven't read the article. Flash is a sandboxed plugin running alongside the browser. It's not the internals of a new and heatedly debated HTML tag, which ultimately has to be an open standard and format, and supported until HTML6 comes around in another decade. Choosing to drop experimental support for a closed, proprietary, and royalty-encumbered codec in a tag's specification that hasn't even been finalized by the W3C yet isn't even in the same universe as dropping support for an external plugin.

podperson 16y ago
How is supporting arbitrary codecs via the <video> tag any different from supporting arbitrary fonts through CSS font-family?
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Supporting arbitrary codecs is more like supporting arbitrary font formats. Each separate codec uses its own (potentially vastly) different way of encoding video, and requires its own code to handle. Using the operating system facilities is too risky from a security standpoint (such as if someone finds an exploitable bug in the ancient Indeo codec).

memetichazard 16y ago

Can't drop something you didn't have in the first place. As many have argued, it's disingenuous to treat Flash and the H.264 as being equal in this argument. One of these would be implemented into the browser rather than a plugin. One of these would incur a royalty cost. One of these has viable alternatives.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
From http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/google-chrome-flash/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/google-chrome-flash/ Google Chrome Now Comes With Flash Built In 391 View Comments Robin Wauters Jun 25, 2010 Last March, Adobe and Google jointly announced that Flash Player would soon come built in to the latter’s Chrome browser, eliminating the need for users to download, install and update it separately.

andylei 16y ago

sure. not sure how this is relevant tho. if dropping h.264 is a good thing, then Google should drop it. kind of irrelevant whether it also does or does not drop Flash.