Live data from Hacker News

Google is banning Flash from its display ads

theverge.com

1–10 of 148 posts

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#5
post #4

I wonder if people may begin to go back to older browsers for surfing once ads have completely transitioned to HTML5 :-)

With people shifting their layouts over to Flexbox, relying on "box-sizing: border-box", "display: table-xxx" and friends, older browsers will mess up the layout beyond belief. IIRC some older browsers even failed to apply an entire CSS file if they couldn't parse a single rule - good luck with ::before, ::after, ::nth-child and friends.

CSS, unfortunately, isn't really backwards compatible unless you invest a LOT of effort into testing and development.

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#8
One thing HTML5 lacks is the ability to combine all assets into one file. This makes Flash particularly handy for advertisements. Safari almost got there with its .Webarchive format, and Mozilla experimented with a file format but it didn't get anywhere.

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#9
post #4

I wonder if people may begin to go back to older browsers for surfing once ads have completely transitioned to HTML5 :-)

With people shifting their layouts over to Flexbox, relying on "box-sizing: border-box", "display: table-xxx" and friends, older browsers will mess up the layout beyond belief. IIRC some older browsers even failed to apply an entire CSS file if they couldn't parse a single rule - good luck with ::before, ::after, ::nth-child and friends. CSS, unfortunately, isn't really backwards compatible unless you invest a LOT of…

Good riddance. Those older browsers are also going to be full of unpatched security holes, and if websites don't work people will eventually quit using them.

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#10
post #8

One thing HTML5 lacks is the ability to combine all assets into one file. This makes Flash particularly handy for advertisements. Safari almost got there with its .Webarchive format, and Mozilla experimented with a file format but it didn't get anywhere.

Isn't that mostly moot with HTTP 2.0 multiplexing?
Post reply on HN