Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 428237
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Because the alternative—a closed web—is better? There’s nothing politically minded about using the format that can reach the most number of devices, doesn’t rely upon any proprietary tools and doesn't rely on the future of some company’s stock price. It’s common sense!
No, open is not inherently better. For all those points you bring up, I match them up against the one's I've brought up.
The issues are so drastic that I can see them play out, frame by frame, on my browser canvas.
What do you tell a content provider? Deal with 3FPS unprotected streaming video because it's open?
Browser vendors should get their act together and fix the abysmal situation (and in fairness they're starting to) they're in, and then focus on criticizing even Flash.
They're expecting the fanfare without having really done anything.





Member since:
2005-11-29
Yeah, and I'm still shocked how people can say it's "good enough"? As if web users should be forced to deal with mediocrity for the sake of having politically motivated developers feel principled.