File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Porn)
[_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)08:47:16 No.3469532
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)11:07:14 No.3469535
it was the other way tho
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)13:20:53 No.3469547
>>3469535
If you believe that, you deserve a beating as well.
Only the most brainless of NPCs think that HTML5 has any real advantage over flash, apart from
playing a video on a site.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)17:01:43 No.3469566
>>3469547
flash could stream external H.264 video just fine tho. a little later in the timeline most
browsers could play H.264 video on their own just fine without "HTML5"
or well, to be honest i'm a bit at a loss over exactly what "HTML5" means.
This can play a video encoded with H.264 and contained in a mp4:
<video width="1337">
<source src="filename.mp4" type="video/mp4">
</video>
Is that just "html"? Or is it "html55555 (wow)"?
Firefox 3.5 started supporting the video tag in June 2009.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)17:08:57 No.3469568
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
>It is the fifth and last major HTML version that is a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
recommendation.
>The current specification is known as the HTML Living Standard.
>It is maintained by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), a
consortium of the major browser vendors (Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft).
>The W3C ceded authority over the HTML and DOM standards to WHATWG on 28 May 2019, as it
considered that having two standards is harmful.
>The HTML Living Standard is now authoritative. However, W3C will still participate in the
development process of HTML.
Fuck, I had not realized that the big corporations had literally taken over the web standard. I
just thought they had too much influence.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)17:23:00 No.3469574
>>3469547
>>3469566
>>3469568
>overdosing on copium
lmao
literally no one uses flash anymore apart from this board lol
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)17:24:11 No.3469577
>>3469574
yes we're coping with stupid people, such as yourself. your point being?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/21(Fri)17:38:20 No.3469582
>>3469577
https://imgur.com/gallery/jWr67J8
>> [_] Anonymous 08/01/21(Sun)09:27:18 No.3469636
>>3469582
>Mooom, they are being mean to me on the internet again!
>Darling, just post a non-embedded link of a simple reaction image to an external image host on a
board that doesn't allow image reactions. That will show 'em!
