Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software

Open-Source JavaScript Flash Player (HTML5/SVG) 300

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-called-gordon-get-it dept.
gbutler69 writes "Someone has gone and done it. Tobias Schneider has created a Flash player written in JavaScript targeting SVG/HTML5-capable browsers. It's not a complete implementation yet, but it shows real promise. A few demos have been posted online. How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Epiphany, and other Web-Kit based browsers completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open-Source JavaScript Flash Player (HTML5/SVG)

Comments Filter:
  • by the roAm (827323)
    Wait, Javascript? Oh shit. I can feel the slow already.
    • Re:This is great! (Score:5, Informative)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:44AM (#30820632) Journal

      Welcome back to 2008. There was major improvement in javascript engines during 2009 in all other browsers than IE and Firefox. Chrome and Opera have incredibly fast javascript renderers and they're pushing it even more in next Opera version.

      • Re:This is great! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Zerth (26112) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:02PM (#30820928)

        I dunno. The tiger demo(which appears to just display a picture of a tiger) maxes out 1 core in Chrome.

        The animated stuff barely tickles it, though. Odd.

      • Re:This is great! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Shining Celebi (853093) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:50PM (#30821588) Homepage

        Welcome back to 2008. There was major improvement in javascript engines during 2009 in all other browsers than IE and Firefox. Chrome and Opera have incredibly fast javascript renderers and they're pushing it even more in next Opera version.

        Firefox 3.5 was released in June, with new Javascript improvements via Tracemonkey (a JIT compilation engine) that make it comparable with Chrome. I just tried out the demos and Firefox does not noticeable lag and it did not use more than 10% CPU, which is about the same as a normal Flash video for me.

      • Re:This is great! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @04:22PM (#30824688)
        IE8 came out in 2009, and from my understanding it massively improved JavaScript performance. Still not on par with the competition, but within an order of magnitude. FF 3.5 (with TraceMonkey) was released in 2009 as well, and had a similarly impressive boost to JS performance. Just because neither is quite at a Chrome level doesn't mean they aren't *much* faster than they used to be.
    • Re:This is great! (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:47AM (#30820678) Journal
      Why? Most of what a Flash applet does is run ActionScript, which is a dialect of JavaScript. The drawing in this will be done by the browser, rather than by a plugin, and the code will be run by the browser's JavaScript engine instead of the plugin's one. If anything, you'll see less memory usage because you'll only need one JavaScript VM instead of two.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by the roAm (827323)
        That's mostly true, but I'm somehow doubting JavaScript, as implemented in most rendering engines, will be able to do any of the higher-level Flash stuff with any semblance of grace or speed.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Transfinite (1684592)
          Not true at all. Javascript engines are getting faster, a lot of effort, time and money is being put into making that so. Googles V8 engine for example. Also paired with the fact that HTML5 introduces a notion of concurrency into Javascript this is then even less of an issue. ~Unfortunately most people still think circa 1998 when talking about Javascript. Wrong. Javascript is key to the future of the web and not heavy inefficient server side solutions. Have a look at say node.js and see if you still think
      • Re:This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jurily (900488) <jurily&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:54AM (#30820798)

        Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?

        • What do you suggest as a replacement for the functionality provided by Flash?

          • ECMAScript and open graphics standards?

            Or is that what Flash was originally slated to be?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dave420 (699308)
              When that's possible, sure! Until then everyone will keep using Flash, as it's released, wide-spread, fast, and works.
            • JavaScript audio? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @01:52PM (#30822632) Homepage Journal

              ECMAScript and open graphics standards?

              What about open sound standards? Can the <audio> element of the HTML DOM support playing multiple instances of one sound at once, or varying the playback rate or volume of audio, or synchronizing vector animation to the audio? The common uses of audio that I've seen in SWF objects on Newgrounds makes use of all of these Flash Player features.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Ltap (1572175)
          The answer to your question relies on a proper definition of "we". "We", to you, means everyone who uses the Internet. However, "we", in reality, are a small minority of people who know what they are doing and what they are talking about.

          It is similar to ipv6 - change can only happen at the level of big companies (or, in this case, video hosting sites like Youtube) who don't want to change for various reasons. HTML5 took forever to get here because it was designed to be easy to transfer to, but people ha
          • HTML5 took forever to get here because it was designed to be easy to transfer to, but people have still ignored it the same way they have ignored web standards since their first conception.

            You know, the HTML5 standard isn't even complete yet.

        • by ubrgeek (679399)
          Sure, in theory. But clients often see something they think is sexy on the Warner Bro.'s site for some new movie or a really cool sports game on ESPN and they want something similar. Then trying to get them to understand that their desire for something similar on their site requires using something despised by a large number of people (i.e. Flash). Then you're in a tight spot. Most times, my clients want the neat shinies they see, despite the fact that it actually goes against the first requirement they giv
          • Then trying to get them to understand that their desire for something similar on their site requires using something despised by a large number of geeks (i.e. Flash).

            Fixed that for you.

            Most people on the Internet think Flash is just part of it. And many of them (I'd guess most) actually like it.

            • by Jurily (900488)

              So, everyone who doesn't accept the One True Internet gets written off as a geek? Fine, next time fix your own damn cupholder.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?

          Bite your tongue. If anything replaces Flash it will be Silverlight. Do you really want Microsoft controlling the non-HTML portion of the Web? Do you really want Microsoft turning the Web into a Windows-only experience? Because that's what's going to happen if Flash is supplanted. Be careful wht you wish for.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by NightLamp (556303)

          Can't we ditch JavaScript and _just_ use Flash - a nice blockable scripting engine that isn't integrated so deeply with HTML that disabling it breaks scores of sites with otherwise useful information?
          If I want maximum battery life I block scripting, period. If I want fancy UI doo-dads and continuous browser-server communication I can enable Flash. What I don't want is great gobs of busted HTML when I don't want to run any kind of scripting engine. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, I'd like it

      • Maybe that won't be so bad then. Javascript will mainly just interpret the binary flash file and represent it back to the browser as svg +javascript. It doesn't have to render each frame of the movie, it could just tells the browser the key frames and the general instructions of how to get from key frame to key frame. Not going to be as fast as flash, but it still has a chance of not being pear pc* slow.

        For you younger folks or older folks with limited mental faculties, Pear pc was an emulator of a powe
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by datapharmer (1099455)
      Clearly you aren't on a mac. I can tell a website is running flash with my eyes closed on my mac because the fans turn on. Other than rendering large amounts of video, flash is the ONLY thing that causes my fans to come on with any sort of regularity. This is not a browser specific issue, it is a adobe wrote and anwful flash implementation for mac. I am all for a javascript replacement for flash if it gets rid of the adobe crapware. Adobe flash for mac might actually be worse than real media player was on
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ByOhTek (1181381)

        Don't feel particularly special. Adobe flash is horrid on ANY platform it is made for. Not just Mac.

    • I mean its great and all, it means that this new "flash" player will probably end up working across all the browsers eventually, and without the security vulnerabilities and downsides to the flash plugin.

      But I think in the end - Flash is still going to be used to create the content. Adobe will put more effort into optimizing it, and then a lot of "regular" people will just end up prefering the flash plugin.

      I mean Gordon is a server side installation, which means I personally can't start using it everywhere

      • You must not be using Firefox... let me help you with that: http://getfirefox.com/ [getfirefox.com]

        I've found that I can inject just about anything I want into the browser that I run on my machine, isn't this the point of a bookmarklet? For that matter isn't that how most browser add-on's work, including the existing flash player? They extend the page as sent from the server (which by it's nature is either textual or binary, but is in no way inherently feedback oriented).

        As for using Flash to create the content... once upon

  • So I guess the only thing holding it back is its performance (one assumes there are going to be fewer security and download/update issues :)

    The blue demo seemed acceptable to me, but I wonder if it'd suffer as more stuff was added?

    Still - top marks for that man, take the afternoon off.

    • I would say that the main thing holding it back is the total lack of a high-performance way to address bytes in JavaScript. The state-of-the-art for decoding binary protocols in JS is to use charAt and charCode to grab a character at a certain offset in a string, which throws off a phenomenal amount of garbage to be collected and is tremendously slow as well.

      The language needs better ways of manipulating bits and bytes.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by slim (1652)

        The language needs better ways of manipulating bits and bytes.

        A hidden canvas element?

        (I feel dirty now)

      • Why do they generate garbage? This was a solved problem in Smalltalk-76 (and Smalltalk copied it from Lisp), and I use the same solution in my Smalltalk compiler. Small integers are treated as immutable objects and are squeezed into a pointer (low bit set to 1, since all objects must be word-aligned and so always have their low bit set to 0), so you can store 31- or 63-bit integers without needing to allocate an object (or involve the GC). A trace VM can easily inline the charAt() method, so apart from t
  • by mandark1967 (630856) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:46AM (#30820652) Homepage Journal

    just duplicate the security vulnerabilities that Adobe provides us, we can finally put Adobe out of business!

    • Not as funny as it sounds: flash based cookies, which are not that easy to block and/or delete for the user, are used by all advertisers and other bastards, spying on you

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mandark1967 (630856)

        I make it a point to verify, with each update of Flash, that my settings to automatically deny flash based cookies remain intact.

        I hate the way you change configuration with Flash and would gladly do without it if something open-source could take its place.

        I just hope the people working on this keep in mind that configurability and security are as important as performance.

      • Re:Now if they could (Score:5, Informative)

        by clang_jangle (975789) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:31PM (#30821328) Journal

        flash based cookies, which are not that easy to block and/or delete for the user, are used by all advertisers and other bastards, spying on you

        Trivial to defeat, at least in *.nix. Just remove all write permissions to the ~/.adobe and ~/.macromedia directories, after deleting all the cookies within. Buh-bye, flash cookies. Also makes flash work noticeably faster.

    • by yabos (719499)
      The ironic part is most of the Acrobat reader vulnerabilities are accessible due to javascript. Disable javascript support in the reader and you are pretty safe from most of the exploits. I don't know if that holds true for the flash player though.
  • by Anonymusing (1450747) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:49AM (#30820708)

    I checked out the posted demos [paulirish.com] on my iPhone. Although they were a tad sluggish (particularly the star fade-in on the first demo), frankly, it wasn't bad. Some of the sluggishness could have just been because the demos are getting Slashdotted.

    Personally, I'm a little more interested in PhoneGap [phonegap.com], which lets you use JavaScript to create iPhone apps (outside the browser).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      Javascript runs on your hardware, not on whatever server it was hosted on. A site getting slashdotted will make a page more sluggish to load, but not run.

      • I know this.

        While JavaScript runs on the local box, Flash typically begins running as it downloads, so an animation may stutter if it is struggling with the download. I was assuming that this remained true with this JS interpreter, and surmised that some of the sluggishness could have been due to the SWF file downloading slowly; however, I could be wrong. The code might need to download the whole file before interpeting it.

  • Sort of a good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:50AM (#30820724) Homepage

    I'm not sure what to think. I love the idea of not needing to install Flash, but I also like being able to block annoying animations by not installing Flash.

    I think overall, this isn't where things should head. It'd be much better if Flash were to simply work by exporting valid HTML5, CSS, and Javascript. Maybe there are some other advantages to the SWF format, but I'm not aware of them.

    • Presumably it would be trivial to block something well-specced (like video specific stuff in HTML5). Blocking flash blocks *all* flash, blocking video in HTML5 should be easier (no doubt an expert can chime in here and tell us both how easy it would be to ignore video in HTML5)
      • As an expert in ignoring things, I can vouch that it's easy to ignore things which you don't see. So my advice is to stop using the web and go outside more. That way you can ignore online advertisers, email and more! As for ignoring other people when you go outside, carry a bloody shovel over your shoulder and splash a little fresh blood on your clothes. Most people will go the other way.

        Perhaps you wanted someone who was an expert in HTML5? I don't know those people, everyone seems to run away when they se

    • by bersl2 (689221) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:45PM (#30821524) Journal

      I'm not sure what to think. I love the idea of not needing to install Flash, but I also like being able to block annoying animations by not installing Flash.

      And this is why we have things such as AdBlock (and variants) and NoScript. Presumably, if and when SVG and the HTML5 media tags start being used much more, there will be browser controls for whether the media should be run or ignored.

  • Not SVG (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SolitaryMan (538416) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:51AM (#30820730) Homepage Journal

    First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.

    SVG has failed a long time ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn't, and all other ways of getting it to the client are non-standard and handled differently by different browsers.

    • Re:Not SVG (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeffrey Baker (6191) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @11:54AM (#30820792)

      Why shouldn't you use XHTML? By the way, SVG made its way into HTML5 and it's much more useful than canvas so I think the reports of SVG's death are greatly exaggerated.

    • by gehrehmee (16338)

      As someone rather new to flash, I'm not so sure how flash video works.

      My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself, so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs. If that's the case, the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I'm way off base, and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code, whi

    • First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.

      No, but if your browser supports the video tag and you have the correct codecs installed then something like this can implement the Flash video APIs in terms of that.

      SVG has failed a long time ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn't

      You should use XHTML. Then you can mix HTML, MathML, and SVG in the same document, and have elements from all of them in the same DOM. The entire point of XHTML is to allow different XML formats to be used in the same document. Saying 'I want to do this without using the solution that was specifically designed for this exact problem' is a ve

    • First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.

      But why should they when your OS already has a perfectly good decoder? Using Flash for video playback was an ugly hack to begin with.

  • How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers [...] completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?"

    I can't offer any informed opinion on that, but I can say that Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight will go down kicking and screaming. Much like the IE6 optimized websites that will continue to use them for many years to come.

  • by f3r (1653221)
    anything using less than 100% cpu in linux is better than Flash. Therefore there can in principle be nothing worse than Flash. Unbeatable, indeed a hard goal to achieve.
  • For anybody else, this would just be a crazy waste of time. Wish Apple would just allow Flash on the iPod/iPhone

    • I agree. Apple is just making life difficult for its users. Espectially because the iPhone doesn't multi-task that means if you wanted just use 100% cpu sure it will drain your battery faster but it is not like you are slowing down other apps.

  • OMGWTFPDF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:07PM (#30820982) Journal

    Great! Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?

    • Re:OMGWTFPDF (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:20PM (#30821186)

      Even better, maybe someone could write a Flash PDF viewer, and then we could view our PDFs using this flash interpreter.

      (Ohboy. The layers of cruft involved in that concept have just given me a cold shiver up my spine)

    • Re:OMGWTFPDF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ReinoutS (1919) <reinout&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:20PM (#30821192) Homepage
      The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place. Try opening it with a real pdf viewer [gnome.org] instead.
      • Exactly! I have a major "WTF?" moment every time I see people opening PDFs in their web browser. Drives me nuts. And Mac people are all up in arms because Chrome on Mac doesn't (or didn't -- it may be implemented now) open PDFs in a plug-in. To me, that's a feature, not a bug.

    • Why view the PDF in your browser? Download and open in a PDF viewer of your choice. Doing it this way won't kill your browser, honest!
    • Great! Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?

      Hopefully you've disabled embedded PDF viewing a long time ago, given the potential security issues..

    • by MrNemesis (587188)

      I've never understood the logic of viewing PDF's inside the browser via plugin; I can understand it for flash or java, where they provide certain functionalities and integrate within the web page, but don't see why you'd want to use a PDF in-browser, which doesn't integrate with the rest of the site. Even worse is when the notoriously corpulent Acrobat plugin starts to load, your browser tends to either freeze (thanks IE6) or act like it's just snorted a gram of ketamine.

      I intentionally disable PDF plugins

      • I've never understood the logic of viewing PDF's inside the browser via plugin; I can understand it for flash or java, where they provide certain functionalities and integrate within the web page, but don't see why you'd want to use a PDF in-browser, which doesn't integrate with the rest of the site.

        It depends on the nature of the PDF. If it's a long windy document, then sure, I'll download it and read it separately. But, for example, a lot of C++0x papers are small (1-5 pages) PDFs, and when reading comp.std.c++, I have to view some random ones all the time. It doesn't make any sense to download them just for one view, and I never know when (and if) I'd need to view that one again. It's so much easier to just open the list [open-std.org], pick the paper I want, and have it open right there and then in the same windo

  • The work that this guy did is amazing, no doubt. But the player supports SWF v1. The current version is 10!

    Gnash already supports v7 and some features of v8/9 and is still not very usable.

    Doing simple animations is one thing. Do you really expect to have a decent AS3 interpreter running in javascript? No question about video of course.

    On the other hand this player could have some niche applications. If someone knows flash, needs some simple animations without violating standards and without messing with JS/

    • by Amouth (879122)
      and Gnash started by implementing v1 before v2.. just like adobe did.. give the guy a break - what he did was not an easy feat (if it was it would have already been done). why not give it some time or support - as far as i know Gnash isn't supported on an iPhone or many other devices. he found a nich and filled it - and from what i saw - i don't think it would be too hard to update it and find flash objects via DOM and run Gordon in place of flash (if flash isn't available).. meaning after some updates m
  • So I can finally switch to 64 bit firefox. And yes, I know that there is a Linux plugin available, but I don't use Linux at home.

  • by Qubit (100461) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:22PM (#30821220) Homepage Journal

    ...according to the article his code only supports the SWF 1.0 format, and he's currently working on adding support for the SWF 2.0 file format.

    Adobe Flash 1 and Flash 2 (which I'm going to guess might roughly line up with SWF 1.0 and 2.0), were released in 1996 and 1997, respectively. As in, over a decade ago.

    Much larger, more long-term projects like Gnash [gnashdev.org] have been working on completing a compliant Flash client for several years and still don't have support through Flash 8, 9, and 10. It's apparently a lot of work to support all of the different pieces of Flash, especially as it turns out that the SWF spec has been completely overhauled several times over the past decade, resulting in wide differences between things like ActionScript 1, 2, and 3.

    So while I wish this effort all the best, it would require a lot of time/energy/talent to make this client have the coverage necessary for, say, internet video sites to work.

  • by Quarters (18322) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:25PM (#30821266)
    Ah yes, another stab at (this is a killer!). Those predictions never pan out. Specifically for this: * All existing websites would need to be retrofitted to host .swf (.flv?) movies differently * All popular browsers would need to embrace HTML5 video playback * Microsoft would have to emphasize this over their own product. * Adobe would have to emphasize this over their own product. * The marketing department being utilized for this tech (at this time that would be 'no one') would have to be better funded and more highly motivated than both the Microsoft and Adobe marketing departments * The vast majority of web users would have to care. So, yeah, no.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mounthood (993037)

      * All existing websites would need to be retrofitted to host .swf (.flv?) movies differently

      No, just enough of the big sites like Youtube. If a Flash replacement isn't advanced enough to do this it won't get widely used, but most people don't care about the little sites.

      * All popular browsers would need to embrace HTML5 video playback *Microsoft would have to emphasize this over their own product. * Adobe would have to emphasize this over their own product.

      uh... do you think Flash would magically disappear if a competitor arrives?

      * The marketing department being utilized for this tech (at this time that would be 'no one') would have to be better funded and more highly motivated than both the Microsoft and Adobe marketing departments

      If Firefox included it by default, it would be in almost 1/4 of all browsers globally. Sites will pay attention to that.

      * The vast majority of web users would have to care.

      No, they just have to use a modern Free browser that includes a reasonable Flash replacement.

      A Firefox embedded implementation would alm

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Xtravar (725372)

      Assuming this project gets far enough (and I doubt it will), there could easily be a Firefox plugin that imports this Javascript whenever it sees typical embedded Flash. Also, pandering to iPhone users who don't have a Flash plugin would bring this project into the mainstream almost over night.

  • Doesn't support AS3 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Steve S (35346) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @12:25PM (#30821270)

    According to the list of supported swf tags (http://wiki.github.com/tobeytailor/gordon/swf-tag-support-table ), it does not support DoABC, which means that it does not support Actionscript3. So basically, it only supports the parts of flash that really annoy people: Animations. This won't let you play many neat flash games, or replace Flex, or play a movie designed for Flash9 (introduced in 2006) or later.

    As an Actionscript hobbyist, I love the idea of an open source implementation of the player. But so far, none of the open source alternatives support the features I actually like: Actionscript3. It's a strongly typed language with real classes, and it's compiled to bytecode rather than interpreted (mostly). Javascript has come a long way, but it still sucks if you like strongly typed variables.

    Keep trying, Tobias. And if you get that byte-level access, let the world know.

  • Now seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LunarEffect (1309467)
    I'm impressed! Flash has pretty much become an integral part of the web, yet you always had to download and install an extra plugin to be able to view flash content. Having an implementation of the flashplayer written in a language that can be executed by every major browser reguardless of the operating system is an incredibly useful thing to have.
    And now with ever faster Processors and better implementations of JavaScript interpreters, I think its far from a bad thing to put more work into the hands of i
  • A giant jump for a project, a very small step for the web. Even if you catch current status of current web video players, Adobe/Microsoft will make sure that their solutions are the "right one", adding things, making developer switch to now "essential" shiny features, or even by deals with all the big video providers in the web. You know, like how the most popular browser used in the places where security matters isn't exactly the most secure one.
  • by lewp (95638)

    How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Epiphany, and other Web-Kit based browsers completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?

    Gee, I dunno. How long will we have to support IE6?

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Tuesday January 19, 2010 @05:10PM (#30825364)

    An editor that compares to the Flash Authoring tools.

    Thats it.

    There isn't anything special in Flash that can't be done with Batik or Opera's latest SVG implementations except sound and video, which you can handle in HTML5.

    The only thing thats needed is a good authoring toolset so that graphics gimps can produce their warez without having to use notepad.

Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G.H. Gonnet

Working...