[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 21/08/10 12:55, Rob Beard wrote: > On 20/08/10 22:35, tom brough wrote: > >> Surely flash is irrelevant with the conception of HTML5? >> > > Not entirely, it would require millions of web sites to make HTML5 > versions available, and since a whole load of people still use IE6 it's > not going to happen overnight. > > Rob > I think the point(s) I am making are: 1. Why would adobe continue to support a product that's going to be obsolete sooner or later. Its not going to be in their interests to develop and support 64bit versions if HTML5 overtakes, or shrinks their market considerably. Long time till that happens agreed, but it will. 2. With everything that flash does built into html5 as "standard" won't this make it harder to switch off flash like replacements. At least with flash plugins you could choose not to plug in. HTML5 will only work as a replacement if the flash elements have an alternative "non-flash" option just like img tag has alt so that the image can be described to (for example) blind people who cant use images. I suspect that rules will be broken, history will repeat it self, bad practices will continue in web page construction and ultimately the web browser will become that bit more bloated and inaccessible to those who do not have the bandwidth and those who can not process (blind, deaf, disabled) these "new" forms of media .... Ok I'm starting to sound like an old man, and I do love technology, but only when its in its rightful place. ho hum bloated bandwidth hogging browsers here we come. Tom. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq