[OT] Re: Short forum post on REST API

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 03.04.2011 08:59, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:in889j$knb$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Am 03.04.2011 00:22, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
>>> Nick Sabalausky:
>>>> Heh, yup. Because after all, VRML just went over sooo well.
>>>
>>> Yeah... "what's old is new again" fits so well to web 2.0.
>>>
>>> WebGL gets more minus points too since its on shaky technical
>>> grounds too. It isn't very 'webby' if you will and may have
>>> security implications... but wheee you can make shitty ports
>>> of old games to the browser!
>>
>> If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with WebGL,
> 
> My immeditate reaction is to agree with you on that, because direct 
> experience as both a flash-user and as a flash-developer has given me a 
> strong personal hatred towards Flash. But, if WebGL is driven by in-browser 
> JS (as I *think* it is, not that I've studied it closely), then I dunno, 
> suddenly Flash doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. Heck, at the very least, 
> Flash is already in byte-code when it's distributed, and the 
> "JS-as-the-web's-asm" idea just gives me a rash. Plus it's cleaner/easier to 
> block flash than to block specific JS features. Etc.

But Flash is a notorious security hole, sometimes crashes the browser, ...

> 
>> [If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with] HTML5-videotag
> 
> I dunno. The thing that still bugs me about that is we *already* had the 
> object tag, 

The problem was that there were different codecs for videos (windows media, real
media, ...) and often websites prompted you to install their codec.. which
sometimes distributed malware etc.
It's better to have a video tag with a standard codec that is supplied by the
browser.

> but then ever since YouTube came along everyone just stopped 
> using it, Google outright left it out of Chrome, etc. It was just plain 
> killed off in favor of flash. And now, ages later, they reinvent the object 
> tag and try to convince me it'll finally pull web-A/V out of the flash 
> shackes that *they* had placed web-A/V into in the first place? Even if I 
> did feel that I could trust that claim (a shaky prospect), the fact remains 
> that we *already* had a solution.
> 
>> (I hope google's WebM will win) etc.
> 
> Oh god yes. I suppose everyone knows I'm, well, not exactly a big Google 
> fan, but the legal ball-and-chain that's welded to H.2[0-9][0-9] (whatever 
> the hell it's called) just leaves it a complete non-option, IMO. I'd sooner 
> use flv and an embedded player - and I've always hated the whole concept of 
> flash video players.
> 

Flash also supports H.264 and other patented MPEG crap.