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. 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 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) 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. cheers, --patrick [1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html
