4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoHow is supporting arbitrary codecs via the <video> tag any different from supporting arbitrary fonts through CSS font-family?
- nitrogen 16y agoSupporting 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).