"Daniel Gibson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Am 03.04.2011 08:59, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: >> "Daniel Gibson" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>> If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with WebGL, >> >> My immeditate reaction is to agree with you on that, because direct >> experience as both a flash-user and as a flash-developer has given me a >> strong personal hatred towards Flash. But, if WebGL is driven by >> in-browser >> JS (as I *think* it is, not that I've studied it closely), then I dunno, >> suddenly Flash doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. Heck, at the very >> least, >> Flash is already in byte-code when it's distributed, and the >> "JS-as-the-web's-asm" idea just gives me a rash. Plus it's cleaner/easier >> to >> block flash than to block specific JS features. Etc. > > But Flash is a notorious security hole, sometimes crashes the browser, ... >
Yea, like I said, I do hate flash. It's just that pitting it against JS strikes me as the age-old "shit sandwich vs giant doucebag" debate. (/me tips hat to South Park) >> >>> [If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with] HTML5-videotag >> >> I dunno. The thing that still bugs me about that is we *already* had the >> object tag, > > The problem was that there were different codecs for videos (windows > media, real > media, ...) and often websites prompted you to install their codec.. which > sometimes distributed malware etc. > It's better to have a video tag with a standard codec that is supplied by > the > browser. > The W3C could just as easily have said "use the object tag, use the X codec; any using-a-special-codec feature of the object tag is depricated".
