3 ms·

I'm torn. On one hand, this means that there will be less flash overall polluting the net. A good thing. On the other hand, it also means that the polluters h

by bostik 12y ago

I'm torn. On one hand, this means that there will be less flash overall polluting the net. A good thing. On the other hand, it also means that the polluters have less incentive to actually remove their flash-crap. Someone else will transform their guano into form that is more widely deliverable. A bad thing. Flash will persist even longer. And of course, flash blocker will now kill less ads than before. Damn.

towelguy 12y ago
> And of course, flash blocker will now kill less ads than before. Damn. That was my concern too, but I guess the only difference will be you'll have to block a bunch of scripts and images instead of blocking just one flash file. Why does it matter that Flash persist if it's being converted to html5 on the fly anyway? By the way, the swiffy service Google offers has a extension to Flash (the authoring tool) so it can output html5 directly.