4 ms·

What would be the point of that? Flash is not an open standard and has been abandoned by Adobe. If you're talking about a sandbox in general, isn't that already

What would be the point of that? Flash is not an open standard and has been abandoned by Adobe. If you're talking about a sandbox in general, isn't that already the case with Javascript? The environment Javascript executes under in a modern browser is really rich and a lot of work has gone into making it secure and performant, none of which can be claimed by Flash.

waiseristy 6y ago
The point would be to preserve a fairly large amount of internet culture from the 90's and 00's. Ruffle.js which has already been mentioned utilizes the fantastic JS sandbox already present, no need to create a new one. The browsers just have to support it by default. I don't know enough about the web to determine whether it would be better to emulate Flash within the JS sandbox, or virtualize the Flash runtime itself
- hangonhn 6y ago
  It's fine to want to preserve that but I don't think the browser is the right place for it. Flash is actually quite independent of the browser. So to preserve the ability to run what is by now historical applications, would simply mean supporting running Flash on new platforms/OS. https://www.reddit.com/r/flash/comments/h8753v/psa_how_to_use_flash_without_a_browser_and_how_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flash/comments/h8753v/psa_how_to_us...
  - waiseristy 6y ago
    This is a great way to preserve dedicated flash apps & games. But the tech being independent of the browser doesn't mean developers have integrated it that way. There are still thousands of web pages using tightly integrated flash & HTML that will be broken. You would then need to run the Flash runtime with an HTML&CSS&JS emulator along side, no?
  - wolco2 6y ago
    A website with flash didn't mean the entire website was in flash, there was usually a mixing of html sometimes server side code. The browser is the best place view flash for those reasons. The browser is the only place for it.

waiseristy 6y ago

The point would be to preserve a fairly large amount of internet culture from the 90's and 00's. Ruffle.js which has already been mentioned utilizes the fantastic JS sandbox already present, no need to create a new one. The browsers just have to support it by default. I don't know enough about the web to determine whether it would be better to emulate Flash within the JS sandbox, or virtualize the Flash runtime itself

hangonhn 6y ago
It's fine to want to preserve that but I don't think the browser is the right place for it. Flash is actually quite independent of the browser. So to preserve the ability to run what is by now historical applications, would simply mean supporting running Flash on new platforms/OS. https://www.reddit.com/r/flash/comments/h8753v/psa_how_to_use_flash_without_a_browser_and_how_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flash/comments/h8753v/psa_how_to_us...
- waiseristy 6y ago
  This is a great way to preserve dedicated flash apps & games. But the tech being independent of the browser doesn't mean developers have integrated it that way. There are still thousands of web pages using tightly integrated flash & HTML that will be broken. You would then need to run the Flash runtime with an HTML&CSS&JS emulator along side, no?
- wolco2 6y ago
  A website with flash didn't mean the entire website was in flash, there was usually a mixing of html sometimes server side code. The browser is the best place view flash for those reasons. The browser is the only place for it.