Talk:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash

Possible sources

Lambiam posted an excellent list of sources in this article's deletion discussion. Take a look! --Pnm (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Request quote for James Williamson Lynda.com reference

I requested a quote from the Lynda.com citation, which is cited to make four substantive claims:

1. a common mis-perception is that HTML 5 can provide animation and interactivity within web pages
2. HTML 5 can't provide animation and interactivity within web pages (in article: "...which is untrue")
3. Some organizations like Apple are contributing to these incorrect beliefs by claiming old technologies, or technologies that in fact rely on future versions of CSS, are "HTML 5." For example, Apple's web site contains several demonstrations of technologies that Apple claims are examples of HTML 5 at <http://www.apple.com/html5/>.
4. Of the six demos, only two rely on technologies that are unique to the HTML 5 standard.

--Pnm (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation whatsoever to transcribe the text from the Lynda.com video.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Chen's analysis of Apple and Flash

The article quotes Brian Chen:

Allowing Flash — which is a development platform of its own — would just be too dangerous for Apple, a company that enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it. Flash has evolved from being a mere animation player into a multimedia platform capable of running applications of its own. That means Flash would open a new door for application developers to get their software onto the iPhone: Just code them in Flash and put them on a web page. In so doing, Flash would divert business from the App Store, as well as enable publishers to distribute music, videos and movies that could compete with the iTunes Store.

Because this quote is heavy in opinion, analysis, and POV – in other words, unbalanced – I think it's best to summarize the author's factual statements and use a short quote to capture the tone of the source. Including the full quote compromises the article's neutral POV.

I replaced the text with this, which was reverted:

In November 2010, a Wired columnist said "allowing Flash — which is a development platform of its own — [on the iPhone] would just be too dangerous for Apple, a company that enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it," and that it would allow developers to circumvent Apple's App Store.

The edit summary says I removed the most important part. What part is that? --Pnm (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of quoting him at all if we don't represent his true point of view? The quote will always be subjective, no matter how you paraphrase it. The point of the Neutral point of view policy is to prevent us from stating our own opinions in the entry. It's perfectly OK to represent someone else's opinion. The most important part is of course his conclusion at the end. Of course, his main thrust of his argument, that Apple dislikes Flash because it decreases their revenue from apps, movies, and music, is the the most important part. That's the bottom line for all businesses -- profit. It isn't open standards, or anything other than money.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of NPOV is to allow the reader to draw her or his own conclusions. I restored the summary and shorter quote, with this revision: "it would allow developers to distribute content which competes with Apple's App Store," to accommodate that concern. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to Right Great Wrongs. --Pnm (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the quote because it calls into question the credibility of Steve Jobs on this issue. We have cited him as a source, even though he is not neutral and his essay is one sided and very inaccurate. You should assume good faith and not call my motives into question. I am trying to portray Flash as accurately as possible on Wikipedia. I will have no problems doing this because I am an expert on Flash. There is nothing holding the reader back from disagreeing with anything the Wired columnist writes.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the source should be included, and quoted – I'm trying to discuss the length of the quote. Yes, the article cites Jobs as a source, but it summarizes his statements instead of giving him a soapbox. --Pnm (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote distracts the reader from the other content in the article, and it's not more important than the other content. The summary I've written, and edited to accommodate your concern, represents his attitude, the thrust of his argument, and the important points he's making. Perhaps you could try to improve the summary instead of just undoing it. --Pnm (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Authoring tools

I have two concerns about this edit.

1. It states InDesign and Flash Professional are relatively easier than HTML, CSS, and JavaScript IDEs needs a source. This may be what the InfoWorld author means when he says "the endless range of design companions in the Creative Suite ... mind-numbing array of applications" but translating that claim of "relatively easier" to InDesign and Flash Professional is original research. This content needs a source that says InDesign and Flash Professional are easier than the HTML/CSS/JavaScript IDEs, like what the InfoWorld author wrote about Flash Builder and Adobe's tools in general.
2. It separated the citation from article text "many of Adobe's tools are expensive". The source: "Adobe's tools ... array of applications ... and many cost a fortune." Did I mis-attribute this statement? --Pnm (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Flash Builder is designed for coders -- those who prefer working with code. Flash Professional, with its time line and mouse drawing tools, is suited to designers. So, I think, as a compromise, that the name of the tools in question should be removed, for now. As for the expense of the tools, you are correct. I missed that in the source material, so I will place it at the end, again.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed - SVG

One of the main reasons to use HTML5 over Flash is SVG, and not merely video as claimed! We need to mention this fact - it should really make up about 50% of the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, from a Flash creator's standpoint SVG is irrelevant, as Flash already does vectors. Using SVG is of course a better idea, but for reasons largely unrelated to what Flash is used for. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion in that reply. This article compares using Flash to doing the same thing using HTML5, correct? So yes, "from a Flash creator's standpoint SVG is irrelevant", but from an HTML5 developer's standpoint it is the way you do some of things that Flash could have done. That's why there should be something about the use of SVG in this article, in my opinion. However, the following point is also relevant: "[HTML5] seems to be whatever you want it to be – that annoys me. Especially when people lump together CSS3, Web Fonts, SVG, etc all into HTML5. It would be preferable for people to use the phrase ‘Open Standards’ or similar but we’re probably too far down the line for that now."[1] --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if you wanted a comprehensive comparison including features that both have (as opposed to a more useful comparison only pointing out what each does not have in common), yes it would make sense to talk about SVG. In such a case, however, I would prefer comparison tables over this vague text approach we have now… but I think it'd get silly fast. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bugs" in the HTML5 standard

The article says "The standard currently contains bugs" which includes a link to the W3C bug tracking system. The W3C uses Bugzilla for "bug, project, and issue tracking," but there's no evidence that it calls these entries "bugs." Is there a reference to a reliable primary or secondary source which states this directly? --Pnm (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically (that is: realistically in the open source and/or bugzilla using world), any open item in a bug or issue tracker is a "bug". You could change it to "issues" I suppose, but I don't think that would be more accurate. I wouldn't personally have a problem removing the entire statement and leaving the bugzilla reference at the end of the preceding stating that it's still a draft (which obviously means there are still issues to be dealt with). ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a silly thing to mention as a downside to HTML5. The only reason the "Flash standard" doesn't have bugs is that there _is_ no Flash standard; the de facto specification is "whatever currently-deployed versions of the Player do", which of course is subject to the thousands of bugs in the Flash Player bug database. --12.249.226.210 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

I have done extensive work to clean out opinion from the article. However, the user "Best Dog Ever" has engaged in an edit war, undoing all my work claiming that the previous content was fact, not opinion. I therefore submit that my changes be reviewed by other users and that the article be protected to ensure that irrelevant and blatant opinion isn't injected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpramanik (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You have now made three reverts to the article. Any further reverts by you within the next 24 hours will be reported to the appropriate notification board for administrative action. (See WP:3RR.)--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would give the same advice to you, sir. Varunpramanik (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Varunpramanik

I have many problems with Varunpramanik's recent edits to the article. First, most of the material added in Varunpramanik's edits was uncited. Second, he removed many cited facts for no apparent reason other than they were "editorial." They are valuable in understanding the debate, but he removed them anyway. Other edits just didn't improve anything, like replacing "According to Adobe" with "Adobe claims" and the addition of this phrase, "However, Adobe has not described what implementation these web sites and enterprises use of Flash technology and the degree of dependence of the web sites and enterprises on Flash technology." I'm not sure what that phrase means, exactly, but even if I did, I wouldn't have learned anything. No one would have.

In addition, he added this blatantly untrue and uncited statement:

In addition, Apple has noted that the primary reason for crashes on the Mac is the Flash Player, and that while Adobe has worked with Apple to try to resolve some of these issues, they have yet to deliver a high performance, low power consuming and stable version of the Flash Player for Mac OS X.

Ridiculous and untrue. Flash Player 10.1 did, in fact, improve performance, as noted by numerous third parties. He also removed my notes about Adobe authoring tools and the Flash Packager for the iPhone, without any valid reason.

For these reasons, I have taken the highly-unusual step of reverting all of his edits. Yes. I cannot find a single valid change in any of his edits.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Response:

The user has made no attempt whatsoever to follow my citations, instead resorting to assuming that I've made statements that are untrue. For other users reviewing my changes, I suggest that you follow the citations I put in place and be a judge of their validity.

In addition to my attempts to remove opinion (which I perceived as blatant), I made several changes to grammar and style (neither of which the user has attempted to either understand nor consider) and rephrased several statements to clearly convey what they were trying to say.

From personal experience and from the experiences of my friends, family and peers, I can safely say that the Flash Player performance on Mac OS X is abysmal. If you don't want to take my word for it, take John Gruber's: http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/flash_free_and_cheating_with_google_chrome

I will not resort to further trying to undo the reversions "Best Dog Ever" has done. I submit my changes to other users to review and be the judge of. If found valid, I suggest that this article be protected and watched to ensure the prevention of opinion injection.

Note: Read through the article and tell me how it does not read like an Adobe press release or ad campaign.

Varunpramanik (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The following pages describe the performance improvements on the Mac with the 10.1 release of the Flash Player: [2], [3]. Personal experiences and hearsay from friends and family are not enough evidence to support changes to an entry on Wikipedia. (See WP:OR.)--Best Dog Ever (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Entries on Wikipedia should reflect a wide range of opinions. Don't assume that your sources are better than someone else's. Therefore, if you have read something that contradicts what is written in this entry, feel free to add it to the entry. Just state that, in contrast, someone believes something that contradicts what the source in this entry says. In other words, don't assume that your source is better than mine and then re-write the article to reflect what your source says. That is what makes entries one sided. This will cause the entry to, at any point in time, be biased. To avoid bias, we must state both sides of a debate. Make sense?--Best Dog Ever (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I provided citations for my edits rather than relying on hearsay. But of course, you wouldn't know. You haven't bothered to check.

By the way, something that contradicts with your opinion doesn't automatically become unsubstantiated opinion. Don't march to the beat of your own drum. Varunpramanik (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the edit in question, too. It removes some facts which were supported by reliable sources, adds at least one sentence of editorial, and offers Apple as a neutral source. I restored one bit – helping to clarify which platforms run the Flash Player. Varunpramanik, I urge you to locate reliable, secondary sources for material you add, and to please refrain from removing well-sourced content from the article. I agree the article has serious POV problems, but POV vandalism isn't a good way to fix them. --Pnm (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

neutrality badge (performace)

apparently, someone thought that the performance section is not neutral enough. but I don’t see any discussion here on the talk page about it, so I suggest to remove it – i don’t have any sources that are more “trusted” than the current one, but it’s hard to cite the rage of countless users in almost as many bug trackers and forums all over the place – Flying sheep (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. I removed it. --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(in)feasibility of DRM in HTML

I wrote a proof of infeasibility of DRM in open standards. Unfortunately, it was replaced by a text which claims the opposite. Fortunately, the new text refers to a clarifying source: While there is no DRM in the HTML spec, implementation ≠ spec, especially for codecs, which the spec does not cover. Thus, DRM is feasible. Not in the HTML spec, but in implementations of either HTML or codecs. This has nothing to do with my point, that there is no way to have an openly standardised (and thereby interoperable), yet effective, DRM scheme.

Before declaring yet another edit war, let's clarify my point with an example: CompanyX wants to develop a DRM scheme that only permits watching a video in the browser, but not saving it. Okay, CompanyX develops BrowserX (might as well be a plugin), that will play the video but lacks a "Save" option. Mission accomplished. Obviously, they need to plug some security holes for this DRM scheme to become effective. For one, the user might just grab the video URL from the HTML source. Okay, they develop ProtocolX, a secret protocol between ServerX and BrowserX for transmitting video. This is not going to be interoperable as long as CompanyX keeps the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.30.119 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are Adobe's Flash tools more expensive and easier to use?

I reverted this edit which removed this text from the article:

Constructing Flash websites using Adobe tools is relatively easier than with integrated development environments for CSS, HTML, and JavaScript, however, many of Adobe's tools are expensive.

This is the page in the source which makes this assertion. I think this qualifies as a reliable source.

The WP:YESPOV section of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy advises editors to avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Saying Adobe's tools are expensive seems like a straightforward assertion of fact, not an opinion, despite the implicit comparison. It's like saying an Aston-Martin is an expensive car. Scientific proof is not necessary. That Adobe's tools are more expensive seems a simple assertion of fact.

WP:YESPOV also says to avoid stating opinions as facts. This is the direct quote from the source:

The world of CSS, HTML, and JavaScript development has come a long way, but it's still hard to find an integrated development environment for producing sophisticated Web applications. [...]

Adobe's tools such as Flash Builder and the endless range of design companions in the Creative Suite have been making this relatively easy for years.

If this is indeed a statement of opinion, we could rewrite the sentence by saying "According to one analyst, constructing Flash websites... is relatively easier..." If it's a statement of fact it should stay the way it is. A third option would be to find another source which makes the point in a different way.

Responding to the comment that the statement is biased, the best way to fix that would be to balance the statement with a different perspective from another source. The neutral point of view policy gives a lot of background. --Pnm (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite !votes

I see that this article has balance issues. I think that indicates a need to expand the article with sources that help create a neutral POV, not to rewrite it per se.

However, the Afd closer noted that there was a consensus to rewrite. Would those who felt that way articulate what you're trying to address with a rewrite? --Pnm (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

sheesh people

It is another wikientry created by an Apple-tard of the kind "Apple versus the world".

First, i don't find the comparison, aka a simple table that show what some is capable and what is the other unable to do it.

--190.21.121.201 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)--190.21.121.201 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Reversions

1. Reisio mis-understood what the speaker at Adobe MAX was saying. And, regardless of whether his point of view is valid or not, his view is relevant to this topic. (By the way, he does not work for Adobe and he actually says that in the speech.) He's actually talking about the fact that the engine that renders Flash movies behaves identically across computers because the plugin is the same. HTML, CSS, and JS are interpreted differently by different browsers.
2. 1. HTML and CSS does not support measurements using decimal notation. For example this doesn't work:

      <span style="font-size:14.5px">This doesn't work.</span>
      

      If it does work, provide proof it does.
      
   2. Also, to add to the second point, you can specify, while authoring, the anti-aliasing mode of the text. In contrast, HTML and CSS do not provide any technique to accomplish that. It is up to each browser to handle anti-aliasing for all sites. Consequently, HTML text looks more jagged than Flash text, in my experience.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
   3. I don't know what Reisio meant when he said the paragraph under "Performance" cancels itself out.

   Thanks.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

   1. I didn't misunderstand what he was claiming, it's just that what he claimed is not true and therefore not relevant.
      
      I did state in the summary for that diff that the view is interesting, but again given its inaccuracy, it cannot be presented here (at least not under a heading about cross platform support, possibly instead perhaps one about industry misconceptions). I didn't say he works for Adobe, and his occupation was not stated in the article.
      
      Now to the core of this issue:
      
      The plugin is not the same. Of course it is not. Flash player like all applications must be ported to each hardware and operating system architecture it is to be used on. Even Java applications (and other things of the like such as .NET applications) rely on ported code (at a lower level). I do admit that builds of Flash player for various platforms are fairly reliably the same in how they work/present/render/etc.. (I say this in spite of many Linux installs currently having by default blue-tinted video in Flash objects, to finger only one obvious discrepancy)
      
      The text in question talks about how Flash is available for iPhones and for Desktops and that somehow that means it's more cross platform than HTML, which is simply ridiculous. Flash player has been available essentially for Microsoft Windows, and select Unix systems (including Mac OS & Linux to name only two); amounting also to roughly three relevant hardware architectures: x86/64, ARM, & SPARC. On the other hand you can install an "HTML5" ready browser (and indeed almost certainly would even just to go to facebook, for example) on not only more than five hardware architectures (vs 3), but essentially any random desktop operating system you can find (out of a staggering amount). The idea that there's some new browser war (relevant to this issue) and that HTML5 is so differently supported is also total bunk (take for example YouTube's implementation which is already live and working in all modern browsers). Flash is not more cross platform than "HTML5", that is simply all there is to it.
      
      
   2. 1. As stated in the summary for the diff in question, the only way it would matter in the first place is if you created something without any regard as to how it'd be resized (if at all) later on, which makes for a pointless comparison (this article is meant to be a comparison, according to its title). Whether one technology's helper applications makes it easier for people without foresight who make gross mistakes to produce something not horribly ugly is not directly relevant. For this reason I would also not point out in the article that using "HTML" instead of Flash gives you the ability to, for example, control the overflow of the viewport (whether the browser presents with a scrollbar or not) — it simply is not relevant.
      2. Among the "techniques" HTML provides are antialiasing in the canvas element, for starters.
         
         The reason your text looks jagged is because you're using Windows (specifically Windows XP, it seems, which has even worse text rendering than newer versions of Windows).[4] If you're using updated versions of Flash player but not of your OS or browser, naturally the difference between the two will become ever greater. Newer versions of your OS and its preferred browser render text slightly better. Other OSes including Mac OS and Linux render a whole lot better.
         
         
   3. The text said basically that a poor author can make a poorly performing Flash object and that a poor author can make a poorly performing HTML-based presentation. This is a useless comparison. You may as well say that 'Flash' and 'HTML' both have the letter 'l' in their names. :p No useful information is gained by this text.
      
      
   ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
   1. Clearly what he said is relevant because he's not the only person to have made those arguments. And the truthfulness of his statements is really irrelevant here because such views are helping shape the debate. The article just says what his opinion is. It doesn't say it's a proven fact. It's like saying that the view among Christians that Jesus walked on water isn't notable to Christianity because it isn't true. It's still relevant to the debate and by the way I agree with what the speaker at MAX said. The normal way to handle these issues is to just add any material you think contradicts his views to the article with sources. If we just cut out one side of the debate, the entry will become biased. I think you make some good points about it not being exactly the same (although they are trivial compared to the inconsistent rendering of HTML), so I think it would add value to the article if it had that information. Nonetheless the title "Industry Misconceptions" would violate the NPOV policy.
   2. Same issue. If you think it doesn't matter, just let the reader know that with some sources. Infoworld thinks it matters and so do I.
   3. The reason that part is there is because some people have blamed the Flash platform entirely for the poor performance of Flash sites. This clarifies that it isn't necessarily an issue with the technology.

   By the way, I plan on following the advice of the visitor above and adding a table to this entry in a few weeks.

   —Best Dog Ever (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   Making the article virtually just comparison tables (as with other comparison articles/tables) would simplify things considerably; but it won't, for example, make Flash more cross platform than any of HTML/SVG/CSS. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

   Adobe Max viewpoint

   I see we have a whole section that is an uncritical report of a speech given at 'Adobe Max' last year. This is not how WP:NPOV works. Even I can see that most of what Mr. Asseo said was predicated on the false premise that HTML5 was always going to be implemented differently on every browser. The whole point of the long lead time on the HTML5 recommendation is so that the spec, when released, is implemented identically in every conforming browser - including error handling etc. If no one else in the industry has commented on this sales speech of Mr. Asseo, then per WP:DUE, "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true [that he made it] or not". If people have picked up on the fallacy that he based his argument on, and written about it, we need their rebuttals in this section. Which is it going to be? --Nigelj (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, it's going to be whatever unfounded completely inaccurate nonsense people keep adding. I give your edit a day or two at most before it's reverted. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)