Comments on: iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and Standards

By: Review of this Blog’s Usage in 2010 « UK Web Focus

Review of this Blog’s Usage in 2010 « UK Web Focus — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:26:03 +0000

[...] iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and Standards February 2010 11 comments 4 [...]

By: Mark Greenfield - Higher Education Web Consulting » The Axe Man Commeth Preview #higheredlive

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:52:46 +0000

[...] Magitronic Emerging … on iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and S… [...]

By: Magitronic Emerging Technologies

Magitronic Emerging Technologies — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:44:02 +0000

Nothing wrong with teaching technological skills for the twenty-first century workforce. But I ask again, why two devices? Possibly because the iPad simply cannot replace the traditional general purpose computer despite its portability and features. The iPad is a cloud device that runs controlled applications approved by Apple. There are few local storage options available. USB support or other card storage requires an add-on at an additional expense. Some will disagree that the iPad can’t replace a desktop or notebook computer (see here and here, for example), but I think it comes down to matching work habits with features.

By: dancerdo

dancerdo — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 03:35:01 +0000

The fact that without flash is still a pity for ipad users. Take movie for example, ipad users had to use movie to ipad converter to convert their movie to ipad.

By: Roddy

Roddy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:18:11 +0000

Flash uses (licenses) the On2 (http://www.on2.com/) video codec for video. Google is in the process of acquiring On2 (http://www.on2.com/index.php?id=472&news_id=697). I think the next video codec is therefore obvious. Apple is the only real proponent of H264, which will go the same way as Quicktime. As for HTML 5, don’t hold your breath…

From the WHATWG wiki:
….. HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later. This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004. That’s actually not that crazy, though. Work on HTML4 started in the mid 90s, and HTML4 still, more than ten years later, hasn’t reached the level that we want to reach with HTML5. There is no real test suite, there are many parts of the spec that are lacking real implementations, there are big parts that aren’t interoperable, and the spec has hundreds if not thousands of known errors that haven’t been fixed. When HTML4 came out, REC meant something much less exciting than it does now.
For a spec to become a REC today, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate). When you consider how long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to implement each feature, you’ll begin to understand why the time frame seems so long.

By: iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and Standards « UK Web Focus | Drakz Free Online Service

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:54:32 +0000

[...] here: iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and Standards « UK Web Focus Share and [...]

By: Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus)

Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:31:56 +0000

Yes I agree, the video element does allow alternative format to be accessed if the preferred format is not supported. But when you say "You just need to encode the videos twice" (my emphasis) I'd question the word 'just'. Aren't you actually saying "Sadly you must encode the videos twice in order top provide an interoperable solutions across a range of browser"? And yes, this will cost time and effort. So people won't necessarily do it. S0 we probably won't have an interoperable environment :-(

By: Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus)

Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:27:16 +0000

Yes I agree with your point. W3C's SMIL was intended as a open replacement for synchronised multimedia but as I described in a post on "Why Did SMIL and SVG Fail?" it failed to provide an open alternative to Flash in this area. As I had already addressed this area, this post covered the video angle.

By: Philip Roy

Philip Roy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:36:14 +0000

The license deal for H264 has just been extended until 2016….

http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

By: Geek Glue

Geek Glue — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:20:55 +0000

Reading html5 vs Flash posts one could get the feeling that the only thing Flash did was video. Flash was enormously successful before it became the default platform for video. Even now there is a vast array of non-video Flash content on the web. At the very least casual gaming represent an enormous slab of Flash content (a successful game could have millions of plays in it’s first few days). While these games could be reproduced in html5 with current tools this would be too arduous to contemplate. Therefore we are many years away from a Flash free device being able to reproduce a fully featured web experience.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:48:50 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by briankelly: Blog post on ‘iPad, Flash, HTML 5 and Standards’ or why are video standards so complex? http://bit.ly/amEEp7…

By: Frankie Roberto

Frankie Roberto — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:23:43 +0000

Whilst the H.264 vs Ogg Theora thing is a nuisance, it’s not as much of a nuisance as it could be. Thankfully, the video element in HTML allows you to specify multiple video types, and browsers will pick whichever one they support (in the order you specify). So you can support both Safari, Chrome and Firefox users. You just need to encode the videos twice.