Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
No Harry, you are wrong.
As I said, Your personal habits have nothing to do with whether my statement is an opinion or not.
I'm talking about the internet as a whole, I really could care less about your personal habits.
|
I assume you mean that you COULDN'T care less about my personal habits
.
To return to the point, though, what you're saying is that sites which rely on a particular "plug in" to operate mean that support for this plug-in is essential for web browsing
in general; this is the point which I really cannot agree with. What's necessary for web browsing is to have a browser which is reasonably compliant with the appropriate HTML standards.
Flash falls entirely outside the area of HTML standards conformance. If a particular site chooses to use Flash, they are of course entirely free to do so, but if Flash is essential for that site, they are removing themselves from the whole arena of web standards by making that choice. That site's choice to use Flash certainly doesn't (in my view) suddenly mean that Flash somehow becomes a part of web standards - it really doesn't.
The standards-conformant way to play video, etc, is to do so with HTML5, which is a certified standard, not a 3rd-party proprietary plug-in.