Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

googlecode.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#71

Post by yuhong »

jarek wrote: post #34
pornel wrote: post #8

> Which browsers support Swiffy output? > Swiffy uses SVG features that are currently only supported by Webkit-based browsers such as Safari (on desktop and mobile) and Chrome. That's not the HTML5 future I wanted :( In Opera it fails due to JS errors that don't look SVG-specific. It's a shame, because Opera's SVG support is a bit more complete than WebKit's: http://www.codedread.com/svg-support.php (sadly the Swiffy…

At this point I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever actually get to a fully cross-browser web. We've had two broad reboot attempts (first to "XHTML+CSS", the current one to "HTML5") and both times we ended up largely with a limited list of browsers and engines supported just as we had in the days of Netscape 4.x/IE4. The supported browsers are the cool browsers/engines of the day, which we then proceed to curse in three-…

I think it is just that it takes time for any new feature to mature enough that it is implemented in browsers interoperably. For example, the first implementations of a CSS3 module generally require vendor prefixes, but eventually it makes it to candidate recommendation, which is when they must drop the prefixes, because this is required (and also that tests pass that it is implemented interoperably) for the module to move to proposed recommendation.

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#72

Post by pornel »

statictype wrote: post #65
pornel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cross browser web already exists. It's called AS3. AS3 is not cross-AS3-player. Does it have two (or more) interoperable implementations? Can it run on platforms not supported by Adobe? While single-vendor closed-source plugin is strictly speaking cross-browser, it doesn't have things we want from "cross-browser" solutions: • freedom to run it on any computing platform (people run HTML+JS on their Amigas, becau…

You're misappropriating the term 'cross-browser'. It does not mean open-source or open. It means the technology will run across most browsers. And Flash does that. You have some valid points but none of them seem to refute the idea that Flash isn't cross-platform.

Does Firefox's IETab make ActiveX cross-browser? It runs in more than one browser chrome! …except it relies on one-vendor's binaries and is limited to platforms supported by the vendor — just like Flash.

Even something that is "cross-browser" can have all negative aspects of a single-browser solution.

My point is that for HTML cross-browser is not the goal in itself, it's only a way to ensure that technology is freely implementable by anybody, that content doesn't rely on bugs in one implementation, that fully-functional implementations can be available 10 and 100 years from now if necessary.

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#73

Post by sheffield »

rpearl wrote: post #70
gaustin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right about the definition of FTA in this context. But TFA means The F(ucking|ine|*) Article in this context. I bet it's not a typo.

I always thought it was "the featured article" if you were being polite.

Yes, that's possible. Sorry, I checked if I'm wrong here: http://www.acronymfinder.com/TFA.html , but didn't find anything relevant.

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#75

Post by jarek »

noduerme wrote: post #52
spjwebster wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is looking for the "cool HTML5 future" to be ad-free is going to be bitterly disappointed. Online ads predated the ubiquity of Flash, and they'll be around long after Flash is forgotten.

yeahhh... basically we can turn the last 15 years of annoying flash ads back into the modern equivalent of animated gifs. whoopee =)

At least animated GIFs are easy to disable and doing so tends to have less undesired effects than disabling Flash.

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#76

Post by whatever_dude »

pcwalton wrote: post #64
whatever_dude wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that your anecdotal experience is flawed and that Flash has a better workflow AND performance AND battery conservation on both desktops and mobile platforms (where it's allowed). http://www.next-gen.biz/news/html5-still-lagging-behind-flas... http://iq12.com/blog/as3-benchmark/ http://workflowed.blogspot.com/2011/02/flash-player-101-for-... http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Ar…

http://iq12.com/blog/as3-benchmark/ Is this what you wanted to post? This shows that the browsers' JS engines have been outrunning ActionScript for years now...

This is exactly what I wanted to post. My links cover all the spectrum of tests employed, not just tests that are favorable to Flash. GuiMark3, for example, found that HTML5 rendering of video in high resolutions on mobile devices tend to be faster than Flash video too, depending on version. I'm a defender of pragmatism, not of Flash, and it drives me mad to see people saying things that are just not true, like the previous poster.

My point is that if one analyzes the data, one will find that Flash tend to win over HTML5/canvas performance more often than not. The canvas and visual performance tests are very telling.

As a side note, there's definitely a gap in code execution - that's the link you posted - but it's just one of the factors, as Adobe is well aware of that and is addressing it on the next release. The AS3 VM was much faster than JS when introduced, then they spent a lot of time not doing any optimization at all. From what I've seen from their presentations, they're ready to take that back. Time will tell.

Re: Swiffy: convert SWF files to HTML5

#77

Post by smackfu »

jarek wrote: post #75
noduerme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeahhh... basically we can turn the last 15 years of annoying flash ads back into the modern equivalent of animated gifs. whoopee =)

At least animated GIFs are easy to disable and doing so tends to have less undesired effects than disabling Flash.

At least animated GIFs are easy to disable and doing so tends to have less undesired effects than disabling Javascript.

And since this is really replacing it with Javscript...

Post reply on HN