Greg A. Woods wrote:

> [ On Saturday, August 21, 2004 at 00:34:13 (-0400), Louis Guillaume wrote: ]
> 
>>Subject: Re: Flash for *BSD Petition
>>
>>My first instinct is to agree with this BUT that's like saying "because 
>>I've heard music made with guitar that I don't like: Guitars annoying. 
>>Guitars bad." It's sort of a narrow view of a single means or medium in 
>>which to create content.
> 
> 
> I think your analogy sucks rather horribly.  SWF vs. HTML is apples
> vs. oranges -- it's not even remotely a matter of "all the SWF I've seen
> is bad therefore all SWF is bad."
> 

I don't believe the analogy compared SWF vs HTML. Rather SWF vs. browser 
content, which is like apples vs. fruit or guitars vs. musical instruments.

> 
>>It so happens that many web developers out there have chosen flash as 
>>their medium and as a result, many clients out there know that animated 
>>or "flashy" content is an option and want it.
> 
> 
> The WWW, especially the part people read/view, is (supposed) to be about
> _standards_ compliant HTML.  HTML is primarily about words, and the
> stuff that gets embedded is supposed to be incidental or supplemental.


Really? Who says that HTML is the be-all and end-all of the WWW?

> 
> It's one thing to have images and even really basic animated images
> embedded in an HTML page (a good and appropriate picture can be worth a
> thousand words), but it's another thing entirely to usurp HTML
> completely and send what amounts to _code_ for the browser to execute,
> and that's exactly what "flash" stuff usually is used to do.
> 
> Foreign code _BAD_.  Foreign code _DANGEROUS_.  Foreign code _HURTS_.
> 

Now you've got a great point there and I fully agree. Foreign code is 
truly an evil thing. However...

> This "SWF" media crap really must die.
> 
...that ain't gonna happen! What about JavaScript and PostScript? That's 
foreign code too.

What would be good is an Open and portable standard for Flash-like 
content. Then the developers of plugins and containers that execute this 
content on the client machine would be able to reliably provide 
protection from evil foreign code.

> 
>>I've had a client ask me to produce a site with animation on the front 
>>page. I tried to talk them out of it because many people will not be 
>>able to view the animation or are annoyed by it. Their response was, 
>>"Well we trust your creative ability. We believe that you can produce an 
>>animated page that people will like and an alternate for those who can't 
>>view it. So do it" Whether I actually have that creative ability or not 
>>is not the issue. The issue is that I *could*.
> 
> 
> Sadly there are a huge number of idiots out there who don't bother to
> create that alternate page for those who choose not to download and
> execute foreign code....
> 

And that is, I agree, idiotic and rampant. It's too bad.

Perhaps it would be better to have a petition to get Macromedia to give 
out the code instead of having them build us a potentially dangerous 
black box.

Louis