Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:59 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones This week, both YouTube and Vimeo opened up beta offerings using HTML5 video instead of Flash to bring video content to users. Both of them chose to use the h264 codec, which meant that only Safari and Chrome can play these videos, since firefox doesn't license the h264 codec. Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, explained on his blog why Mozilla doesn't license the h264 codec.
Thread beginning with comment 405943
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: that guy's speaking truth
by Kalessin on Mon 25th Jan 2010 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: that guy's speaking truth"
Member since:

Frankly I don't get the Flash bashing. All of the innovation that has come on the web started out as either proprietary extensions to the standards (Ajax/CSS/SVG), or responses to something proprietary (Vorbis/Theora).

Personally, my problem with it is not it's proprietary nature (though it would be nice if it were open). It's the fact that it basically breaks the basic model of the internet.

The basic idea behind how web pages and browsers work is that pages link to each other, and you navigate those links. Things like flash basically put the entire site on one page and make it impossible to link to anything. If a site is done in flash, and I want to direct someone to some of its content, I have to give them the link to the site and directions on how to find the content. I can't just give them a direct link to the content. Also, many browser features such as tabs and history don't really work anymore because you're really dealing with an application rather than a set of web pages.

Flash effectively breaks the web. Sure, it's a great way to do some things - like run an application in a web browser - but as far as web pages go, building them with flash just makes things not work. You're turning the web into a set of applications instead of pages.

And those flash pages/applications aren't indexable either - which is supposedly one of the reasons that Google created Chrome. They're looking to push javascript for dynamic content because that is indexable. Flash is not.

I'd hate flash even if it were totally open. Solutions which give dynamic content and fancier pages but still allow the basic model of the web to work properly are definitely going to be better than flash or anything like it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

CaptainN- Member since:

Well there are solutions to that particular problem (often called deep linking) like my unFocus.HistoryKeeper ;-) - but that problem exists for so many Ajax applications as well. Just take a look at one of the map websites, like google maps.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kalessin Member since:

True. Flash is not the only offender, but I'm going to be just as irritated with any technology which breaks basic browsing. Any technology which attempts to improve on basic html, bringing us dynamic pages or whatever cool thing that they're supposed to do, needs to still work with things like linking to that page and opening pages in new tabs. If they don't, it's a big problem.

Now, I've never heard of deep links, so I'll have to look into that, but if there is already a good solution to the linking problem, then there's that much less excuse for web pages and/or web technologies to not take advantage of it.

Reply Parent Score: 1