Comments on: Adobe is “sabotaging” HTML5??

By: SkullKid

SkullKid — Tue, 04 May 2010 02:11:56 +0000

All that ranting and “enforced” hatred towards flash won’t lead anywhere as flash won’t disappear any time soon, although I truly believe flash is replaceable on the long run by a unified and strong standard as HTML5 is aiming to be.
There’s still time for Adobe to make Flash Player run smooth on Macs and mobiles. The funny thing is that some people are making that fuss too personal, but I ask them, for how long companies where using Adobe products, including Flash? This “flash is trash” thing is just marketing manipulation because Microsoft and Apple couldn’t do anything better themselves. They just want to take over the market share that Flash owns (I don’t blame their reasons, only their methods).
Microsoft is discretely dropping Silverlight on long terms for HTML5 since it’s open standard and does what SL does simpler and better, also it’s a bit of redundancy against what Flash can do, and I ain’t even counting JavaFX on this amazing equation!
People are falling to this cheap talking on purpose.

By: Luda

Luda — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:55:19 +0000

No one needs HTML5. We need XHTML 2.

By: Carsten

Carsten — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:47:19 +0000

I really hope Adobe will take a look behind the Adobe-rant and see the Problem with Technologies like Flash on Macs or Mobile Devices in general. They are slow as hell and even a video raises up the CPU usage on my MacPro. WTF?
I would really like to see (and code) Flash/Actionscript on top of HTML5, but only if the Technology gets a gigant leap forward in case of performance. There is a good reason for Apple’s beginning dislike of Flash beside Mr. Jobbs eccentric behavior…!

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:26:05 +0000

Lazy, lazy! Wish more companies would be as lazy and give us wonderful programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom,etc.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:19:52 +0000

Lazy, lazy! Wish more companies would be as lazy and give us wonderful programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom,etc.

By: curttech

curttech — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:44:54 +0000

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_why.asp

By: LazyAdobe

LazyAdobe — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:32:06 +0000

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5473 "Report: Malicious PDF files comprised 80 percent of all exploits for 2009" Adobe, biggest security threat to your PC with Flash and PDF. Lazy company is LAZY.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:27:19 +0000

Okay; I’ve read what I can find of the relevant posts on the public-html mailing list (the entire ‘Publish * as FPWDs’ and ‘clarification on Adobe blocking’ threads) and IMO, there’s more than a grain of truth there.
Sure, you can make the argument that they’re not blocking HTML5, but they ARE trying to block (via delay) Canvas as a separate specification. Requesting that a spec not be published until a not-yet-written spec can be published in its place is how you block progress in a specification process. It’s a passive aggressive approach, which is common in spec politics.
If I’m reading the list right, they ARE explicitly opposing publication of the Microdata spec, which makes me a bit angry. RDFa requires XML to implement, whereas Microdata can be implemented in HTML directly without having to build an XML version of a document. This makes Microdata substantially better than RDFa for normal web use, and suggesting that the two standards are equivalent is at worst a lie and at best fundamentally ignoring ease of use for web developers.
Now, to be specific, I’m not arguing bad faith on Adobe’s part as a company. I’m arguing passive-aggressive axe-grinding on the part of the specific members (for Microdata) and maybe a LITTLE bad faith on that person’s part regarding Canvas2D.
Specifically arguing that Microdata should not be put forward as a working draft is a move that is designed to push the use of XML as an underlying format for web browsing, which has been shown pretty clearly (to rank and file web developers, as opposed to tool makers who spooge over the idea) to be a bad direction. That’s clear axe grinding, imo.
Arguing that the Canvas 2D specification should be set aside until a competing proposal can be published is problematic. It would create a public perception that canvas is being set aside for an indeterminate amount of time, which would limit adoption, which would definitely benefit Adobe. That…smells at least a little like bad faith. Not having access to the private mailing lists, I don’t know if there were extensive objections not listed here, but the two that I’ve seen make me uncomfortable about the individuals working on the W3C side of the specification.
That said, I strongly support the WHAT-WG as an entirely separate entity from the W3C. The W3C has demonstrated clearly that it can’t get $#!t done. Thankfully it appears most browser developers are building to the WHAT-WG spec, and are not waiting for the W3C to go through its motions.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:40:28 +0000

No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:39:28 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:38:28 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:37:28 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:36:26 +0000

By: David Smith

David Smith — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:29:34 +0000

Ah. ‘None of the above’, then…

By: A S BAKER

A S BAKER — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:03:48 +0000

OK. Now I have no idea what you’re talking about.