"Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big deal"
Jase, you are misquoting me - I didn't say it was a small deal , and
re-reading my email, it didn't carry my point below. (Note to self: it's not
enough just to think about writing something.)
My main aim in listing those 3 points was to say I can't see the point of
faithfully re-creating the Flash player in an open source style when really,
there are only those 3 areas in which it has the drop on JS. This advantage
surely cannot last forever.
Regarding the points you raise, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of
cross-browser clientside storage, I don't hear a lot of users clamouring for
it since the predominant use case is a single browser on a single machine.
Anything else suggests a return to the days of "this site is best viewed in
{{browser}}" so users have to switch browser in the middle of their session.
As for adverts, totally with the "necessary evil" aspect of them. I don't
like them and as long as I'm free to use AdBlock Plus or equivalent, they
can carry on making them and paying for my favourite sites. I'm aware of the
parasitic nature of this browsing mode, so every once in a while I disable
the AdBlock and randomly click on a few ads.
S.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> - Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big
> deal.
> - Cross-browser client-side storage? Sure, you can do it in JS,
> sometimes, using one of many APIs, but flash's shared object could make a
> good fallback (I've not tried this though).
> - Don't most JS uploaders will use a (hidden? 1px by 1px?) flash
> file in the page to do the heavy lifting (again, I've not tried this)?
> Seems
> Flickr's does.
> - Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash
> (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently)
>
> J
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player
> > has that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript:
> >
> > 1. binary socket (Audio, Video)
> > 2. XML socket
> > 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc)
> >
> > I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS
> > uploader
> >
> > S.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the
> > > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break
> > > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the
> > > > freedom of software users being compromised.
> > > >
> > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is
> > > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that
> > > isn't
> > > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was
> > > an
> > > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or
> > > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could
> > > > provide such a standard that would be really positive.
> > > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard
> > > with
> > > a number of other companies.
> > > http://www.p2p-next.org/
> > > -
> > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
> > > please visit
> > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
> > > Unofficial list archive:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>
> www.jasoncartwright.com
> +44(0)7976500729
