http://www.scribd.com/documents/3096...cribd-in-HTML5
No need for a Flash plugin. Just runs and loads documents right in my browser.
Beautiful. :up:
Printable View
http://www.scribd.com/documents/3096...cribd-in-HTML5
No need for a Flash plugin. Just runs and loads documents right in my browser.
Beautiful. :up:
Interesting.
Sort of.
But I have nothing against flash. And I don't see some overabundant reason to want to open documents in your browser. So unless it makes the PDFs idiot people insist on putting on their website not open up acrobat, I don't see how useful it would really be to not AppleFreaks.
Flash is a plugin that's needed to view certain types of files. It's a proprietary developer tool that tends to be a big, slow resource hog. You usually don't notice it on your PC, but as your PC ages, using Flash on your browser (to watch videos, for example) is what slows things down. iPhones, iPads and the current generation of Android phones can't read Flash files.
The link I posted above is readable on your browser without any plugins. It took a lot less system resources to read, and you could read it on a variety of devices because HTML5 is an open standard. Basically, freer access to information on a variety of platforms.
As well as a massive, cross platform security hole. Want to run an exploit capable of compromising any system, regardless of what OS it's running? You use Flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Well, the point is that HTML 5 supports everything you can do in Flash and PDF, so there's no need for those programs anymore. No more extra apps, just browser (and like Dread pointed out, those particular apps kind of suck - they're slow, resource-hoggy, crash happy, insecure, proprietary pieces of software).Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
High time, too. This isn't the 1980's anymore, so you shouldn't need a proprietary piece of software to view a document, of all things.
I've heard of HTML5 being able to replace Flash, but do you think it'll replace PDFs too?
Probably not, mainly because many agencies (including government agencies here) use PDFs to store and transmit "final" files. An HTML5 document would have to be sent as a ZIP file and unzipped into its component images to be viewable offline. People prefer their documents contained within one file.
That said, maybe there will be a "self contained" executable HTML format that retains the openness of HTML but can somehow be stored as one file.
Yes, there is already a self-contained open format. It's called ... wait for it ... PDF.
No need to re-invent the wheel, y'know?
( http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=51502 )
Is PDF really considered open though? Or is it open, but there just aren't many software developers making high-quality PDF editors?
Not really, no. As far as a proprietary standard goes, it's not that heinous, but it's certainly not what would be considered an "open" standard either, as Adobe gets to call the shots. And, just to head Khen off at the pass, Microsoft's OOXML is an "ISO standard," but that doesn't mean anyone outside of MS would be foolish enough to make the argument that it's "open." "Open" and "standard" are not synonymous terms, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It is open. Contrary to what Cain may think, "Open" means that anyone can create a PDF tool without Adobe having a say in it. "Open" does not necessarily mean that a standard is designed by comittee. It also does not mean that it never was proprietary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And, yes, Cain, OOXML is also "Open". Your definition is too narrow. The OOXML standard is open for all the world to see and implement. It's a completely different matter that it's hideously complicated.
This is something Kain would never thinkQuote:
"Open" does not necessarily mean that a standard is designed by comittee.
Someone has spent a little to much time on the Apple website me thinks :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
Not that Flash isn't as evil as Apple, but I find it curious this thread was started by our local Apple kid.
No, it's actually something I used to deal with a lot at work. Flash has been a source of contention for quite a while. Most people didn't care until drooling reporters writing about iPads decided to focus on it.
I still find it amusing you still say I'm the "local Apple kid". I own an iMac, big deal. I didn't get one for years because I hated Apple fanboys so much. I don't like or own the iPhone or the iPad.
Ugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No offense, but that's a uselessly broad definition of the phrase "open." By that definition, practically every file type is open - .ppt, .doc, .xls... Seriously, under your definition, what *wouldn't* be an open standard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_format
Maybe you should try that again?
It's also the reason why creating and reading PDFs is supported in Ubuntu out of the box - and MP3 isn't. So, your definition of open is largely considered incorrect. Strange, isn't it, when the rest of the world doesn't agree with you?
:haha:
That page you linked to (and the little "factoid" you ripped off from it) is a joke - mp3 isn't included in Ubuntu because of licensing concerns, not because it's an opaque standard. In fact, the MP3 file format standards are outlined in ISO/IEC 11172-3 and ISO/IEC 13818-3... and there are a great number of software tools out there for altering or creating MP3's, which seems to be your definition of "open."
Strange, isn't it, when your own source contradicts you?
MP3 has to be licensed, Cain, it is not open. You may ask the Fraunhofer Institute what they think about unlicensed MP3 software. Just like h.264, CSS or Dolby.
You don't have to license PDF, thus it is open. Maybe you could, once in a while, acknowledge that you're actually wrong about something.
You seem to be confused about the difference between "open" and "standard".
I remember SanDisk was kicked out of an IFA trade show in Germany because they didn't pay for the ability of their mp3 players to play mp3s, know they got sued for that over here (and in other countries) as well, but I don't remember how that ended.
That's a regular occurence at the Cebit :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Some stands will be empty after the first day because the company responsible will be escorted outside by a throng of agents of the Zoll.
So, now your position has shifted from ~ "open is anything that anyone can create a tool for" (like MP3s) to ~ "anything that's either defined in the ISO as a standard, or available without paying license fees, but not specific examples Kain comes up with, like MP3." (I think, anyway.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Clear as mud, thanks. Also does seem to support my original assertion that your definition of "open" is uselessly broad.
Maybe if I was, I would. But, since I'm not acknowledging that, clearly it's proof of my correctness. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
My first assertion still stands. Anyone can create a tool for PDFs. Even if they have no money. Not everyone can create a tool for creating MP3s because they have to license it and thus pay money.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
And the definition is broad. Has to be. I mean, if you want to create distinctions of "openness" you'd have to delve into the differences between BSD, Apache or GPL licenses, have to look at stuff which is open for private use but not for commercial applications and so on and so forth.
But the basic definition is pretty broad. I don't see how you can construct an argument from that.
Might as well argue that "bicycle has two wheels and is propelled by muscular force" is a broad definition as well. And? Doesn't render the description useless in any way.
For commercial use, sure. But a lot of mp3 tools are FOSS, (or just free) and don't pay a cent in licensing fees. Maybe that means the authors would get kicked out of German trade shows, or whatever, but it still seems like that makes mp3 an "open" standard under your definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No you wouldn't. You could simply say that the BSD, Apache and GPL licenses (also, the MIT license, don't forget about that one) are all open, and things like Adobe crap are not open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
(See, not only can it be done, but it's easy to do too!! :p)
Granted, but the question wasn't "what's the definition of open file formats" (though, perhaps it should have been, saved us all a bunch of time and effort), it was whether or not PDF is considered "open." And I really don't think it is, whether or not that's technically the case from your broad, general definition of the phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Well HTML5 could really replace flash, if the video format issue was solved. And there we back with the "open format" issue.
supporting H264 was a shitty decision :( I hope Mozilla sticks to its guns on that issue.
Well so far it seems only Ogg Theora is supported by Firefox, on the other hand Safari only supports H264.
Well, h.264 is a pretty awesome standard... and even with all the licensing crap around it, I'd gladly take it over Flash. So at least it's a big improvement, even if it's not perfect/optimal.