The screenreader sample wasn't an example of what i'm missing on the psp, neither a sample of differences between the different platforms Adobe supports.
What i was trying to say was: - Adobe might not be interested in implementing certain features for whatever the reason. Fair enough, I do NOT blame them. But on an Open Source project someone else *might* be interested, implement it and send it back. - Although the flash player is closed and Adobe is the only company taking care of it, there ARE differences between the plaftforms. Not just "fair" differences (midi vs mp3) but nasty ones such as wmode, seamless tabbing and platform specific bugs (ExternalInterface, MovieClipLoader, etc.) I do not blame Adobe, they are a company trying to make money, that's what companies are for. But maybe open sourcing the player will make them win more money (better player with less Adobe resources). Just my 2 cents! On 8/6/07, zwetan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/6/07, Zárate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Java was not open source before ), has different VMs for different > > Platforms. " > > > > Flash is exactly the same. Let me sum up: > > > > Windows, Mac and Linux > player 9 > > Flash Lite 2.1 > Player 7 + extras > > Flash player for Pocket PC > player 7 > > PSP player > Sort of player 6, but incomplete and buggy. > > > > Let alone as Benjamin says "small details" such as wmode, seamless > > tabbing, screen readers and other really important bugs and features > > not implemented for long time. > > > > don't want to be an a** > > but screen reader missing feature for Flash Lite and PSP player > is kind of a joke > > "hey why not hook my screen reader to use my cell > phone or my PSP"...scenario > > "hey where's my TAB key on that cellphone ?"...scenario > > etc. > > I mean, ok to have a synched version of the flash player everywhere > it's possible, > but the above arguments really does not bring anything. > > I could even return this argument, > Flash player Lite can play midi files, Flash player (browser plugin) can not > does that make sens ? > I think yes > > Here another argument: > it's not because something is open source > that it is obviously better and spread better as "have to use tool", > take the ogg vorbis format for audio, > it's been around for quite some time now > technically it got better features than the mp3 format and wouhou it's > open source, > but you know what ? > how many people do use it on a daily basis ? > is it more widespread than the mp3 format ? > > mind me, if the flash player were open source, > and some people contributed ogg playback inside flash, > that would be cool for us geeks > btu the mainstream would still want to use mp3 first. > > so yeah you can blame Macromedia/Adobe > to have a closed source flash player and because of that > you're stuck and can not playback ogg file format > or whatever else features you're missing > > but on the other end Macromedia/Adobe did implemented > the most wanted feature: playback mp3, and also > most of the other features that make sens. > > cheers, > zwetan > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > -- Juan Delgado - Zárate http://zarate.tv http://dandolachapa.com http://loqueyosede.com _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
