On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 06:33:04PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Brad Smith <b...@comstyle.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > >> > <.................................> It'll be a lot easier to have an > >> > HTML5 > >> > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will > >> > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, > >> > and > >> > host apps to be ported all over the place. > >> > >> I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal > >> to > >> OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite > >> trivial > >> to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to > >> undertake for a community project. > > > > Which community is this relevant to? A niche browser literally no one uses? > > > > The relevant rendering engines that count already have support and its much > > easier to reimplment WebRTC over Flash. WebRTC is fully open spec and has > > already been done. Flash is not and has not been done. > > not to give the impression that I care much about flash (i do not). > however, i was under the impression adobe had opened the > specifications[1] to its flash technology.
A lot of it is but not everything that is required for an open source implementation has been provided. HTML5 is still the better option anyway even if there was enough interest to bother going the full mile with an open source Flash implementation. > regardless, i find it very ironic how something that was initially > designed to be a thin-client (i.e., the web-browser) has grown to the That's your opinion. I've never thought of a browser as needing to be thin. It is thin and useless or rely upon plugins and having some OS's with plugins and lots without. HTML5 builds infrastructure to remove the necessity for plugins and allowing the same functionality everywhere. > monster it is. as pointed out by someone else (sorry didn't keep track > of messages or even threads that closely, since it isn't really a > topic of choice atm) it is amazing how much software, say, firefox > requires. e.g., pulling in dbus. someone said (again I forget who) DBus is small and a very common dependency on systems anyway. > that dbus is small ... still it is crap i don't want on my system > regardless of how small it may be. but hey, i digress ... the world > has bigger problems than what is being hashed out here. Can you rant about anything more irrelevant? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
