- From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:39:36 -0500
2009/12/3 Kit Grose <kit at iqmultimedia.com.au>: > On 04/12/2009, at 1:13 AM, Philip J?genstedt wrote: >> I'll freely admit that the most important reason I oppose this is >> because >> I don't want to implement it > > And I'll admit that the main reason I support it is selfish on my part > too :). > > Basically I don't want to be producing OGG files (given that I already > have many H.264 videos available for use that were previously played > in Flash or QT Player), and the general feeling I'm getting > (anecdotally) is that FF users are increasingly opting to install > NoScript. > > In practice, that means I'm actually using the <noscript> tag again, > which makes me feel incredibly dirty. If they are running noscript then why on earth would you expect them to have flash enabled? :) (1) Flash presents a greater and less controllable privacy exposure than Javascript does. (2) Flash is more frequently blamed for obnoxious ads than JS. (3) Without javascript support a great many flash sites simply don't work because the copy-and-paste flash version probing used depends on Javascript. (4) Flash (and other plugins) are commonly 'known' to trigger firefox crashes, not so for JS. Perhaps I'm all wrong? but I don't think your suspicions pass a sniff test. Someone should try measuring.
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 08:39:36 UTC