Hello, I think most of the people here agrees that having different HMTL browsers is a *good* thing in terms of security and competence. Anyone of those ones worried about differences between flash players want to see just one HTML browser on earth?
The key question is compatibility. I think Adobe must set up the "rules", the standard... what can or can't swf do one swf in the browser. Then everybody else should implement this behavior. As someone has told before, there no many Linux users, (yet) so why is going Adobe to spend loooooots of time on them? Ok Adobe, don't worry for them, but let them build their own player. They are NOT a company, they don't spend money, they just spend *their* time. bye On 1/31/06, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Point well taken Aral. > We can discuss the needs (or lack thereof) for crossdomain policies but I > was more thinking about the bigger picture which is inconsistencies that are > potentially being introduced on the clientside. If those inconsistencies > affect security 'standards' (valid or not) then that worries me. > > A lot of non-technical users will not understand these details, all they'll > hear is misleading info about this 'new, insecure Flash Player'. And what > sticks in their minds will simply be 'insecure Flash Player'. Not good. > > Stefan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aral Balkan > > Sent: 31 January 2006 11:21 > > To: Open Source Flash Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [osflash] [Slightly OT] Gnash & the security model > > > > Hi Alias, > > > > I've never fully understood the need for the crossdomain > > policy file. I think it was Sho who tried to explain it to me > > in a very technical manner but either I'm really thick > > (definite possibility) or I just don't get the value of > > something where you essentially need to disable the security > > via a crossdomain.xml file to get something like web services > > to work without the need of a proxy. It seems to me to be a > > artificial restriction aimed at selling more server licenses. > > It also is a major handicap for Flash when compared to Java > > and rules out the creation of a whole host of applications in > > Flash (like a POP3/IMAP email reader that can check email > > from any domain.) "Sure it'll work, just ask your ISP to put > > a crossdomain.xml file in their root... Ummm, what?" > > > > All that said, I'm personally worried about the impact of > > several, incompatible, Flash player implementations and how > > that will affect the reputation of the Flash Platform. > > Currently, Flash is pretty much a write-once, run-anywhere > > platform and that's one of its (if not its > > greatest) unique selling point. (Maintaining state on the > > client was too, but "AJAX" apps can do that too now.) I'm > > worried that competing players will confuse developers and > > users alike. I'm even worried about the increasing rate of > > change in the release of Macromedia Players, especially the > > pre-release ones (8, followed a few months later by alpha > > 8.5, beta 8.5?, 8.5?, etc.) I believe that *stability* in the > > player is very important. > > > > Aral > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osflash mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > -- Zárate _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
