4 ms·

Windows already has a codec system. Chrome just doesn't use it. No matter how perfect a system service you have, if the premier web browser doesn't use it, it d

by Asooka 4y ago

Windows already has a codec system. Chrome just doesn't use it. No matter how perfect a system service you have, if the premier web browser doesn't use it, it doesn't matter.

pornel 4y ago
This is on purpose, because otherwise it would lead to proliferation of redundant, potentially crappy and insecure formats on the Web. You could end up with sites using some Windows-only formats (e.g. some internal MS Office format), iPhone-centric sites would serve patented HEIC, and then browsers on other platforms would be forced to adopt these formats. Not every plugin dumped in the local OS is as hardened as web-facing codecs. People would likely get pwned through some legacy fax codec from their scanner software. Users seeing broken images is not a good UX, and users installing random code-running plugins, because websites tell them to, is even more annoying and dangerous. We've got decades of experience, and scars in the User-Agent header, showing that developers can't be trusted to make sensible technical choices.
- snvzz 4y ago
  >This is on purpose, because otherwise it would lead to proliferation of redundant, potentially crappy and insecure formats on the Web. In a well-designed datatype system, an image datatype would, for decoding take a compressed image and return a decompressed image. Possibly with streaming support. It would not be able to do anything else, not having capabilities to anything else than necessary.
Avamander 4y ago
Windows's system is terrible though. It's buggy, it requires to use of MS Store, the user experience is terrible. The HEVC extension for example causes incorrect HDR playback on certain AMD cards for years now, with no fix in sight. It's surprising that you've forgotten the shit web was with all the "You must install Adobe Flash Player to view this content" banners or shudder, Java and ActiveX applets.

by Asooka 4y ago

Windows already has a codec system. Chrome just doesn't use it. No matter how perfect a system service you have, if the premier web browser doesn't use it, it doesn't matter.

pornel 4y ago

This is on purpose, because otherwise it would lead to proliferation of redundant, potentially crappy and insecure formats on the Web. You could end up with sites using some Windows-only formats (e.g. some internal MS Office format), iPhone-centric sites would serve patented HEIC, and then browsers on other platforms would be forced to adopt these formats. Not every plugin dumped in the local OS is as hardened as web-facing codecs. People would likely get pwned through some legacy fax codec from their scanner software. Users seeing broken images is not a good UX, and users installing random code-running plugins, because websites tell them to, is even more annoying and dangerous. We've got decades of experience, and scars in the User-Agent header, showing that developers can't be trusted to make sensible technical choices.

snvzz 4y ago
>This is on purpose, because otherwise it would lead to proliferation of redundant, potentially crappy and insecure formats on the Web. In a well-designed datatype system, an image datatype would, for decoding take a compressed image and return a decompressed image. Possibly with streaming support. It would not be able to do anything else, not having capabilities to anything else than necessary.

Avamander 4y ago

Windows's system is terrible though. It's buggy, it requires to use of MS Store, the user experience is terrible. The HEVC extension for example causes incorrect HDR playback on certain AMD cards for years now, with no fix in sight. It's surprising that you've forgotten the shit web was with all the "You must install Adobe Flash Player to view this content" banners or shudder, Java and ActiveX applets.