http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/10553/
Advantages & Disadvantages
The main advantage is that no plugins or virtual machine is required. Any standards compliant browser will support the file, and any OS which has a standards compliant browser will support it.

It would also be much more secure, because all files would run within the confines of the browser. Flash for instance bypasses cookie controls because it stores its cookies outside of the browser. This is exploited by companies to track users. And as long as the browser is secure, the files will be too.

And, the editor could even be implemented as a web application, so that users don't need to install a development tool. And since it uses basic javascript, extensions to the editor could be easily made (this isn't possible in flash/Gnash/whatever else).

The only disadvantages is that the files will run a bit slower for now until the next round of browsers with faster javascript execution. And we may need to wait for the next version of HTML for the additional multimedia capabilities.


Examples of Current SVG/HTML/Javascript Combos include:
Photos Example
Tetris Example
Interactive Slide Show

If there is enough enthusiasm to code such a project, I would be willing to help program.. This should definitely be taken up by someone though so that we no longer need flash.

[41 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #10553


[1 votes] Solution #2: Create a SWF → SVG converter


]]> en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:42:13 +0000 Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:46:01 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/10553/
- web programming/PHP/Web Standards
- The editor could also be coded in javascript, and employ PHP for project storage. This way even the editor is totally cross platform. And it would be a good technology demonstration, drawing more developers to open source browser development (which is great for us, as the future will be online applications).
]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:59:27 +0000 I think that Firefox3 uses the Flash script engine (Flash programs are made of a language that uses the same grammar as javascript if I remember correctly) which was released by adobe a few time ago.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:16:57 +0000
Anything Actionscript can accomplish can be done with pure Javascript, and everyone supports javascript.


]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:28:33 +0000 The idea is very good.
See also my idea:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8485/]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:57:26 +0000
But I have been told (possibly wrongly) that the next version of HTML adds major new features dealing with multimedia applications (I have not checked it myself though).

Either way, by the time that the editor for this has been completed, I'm pretty sure that HTML will be ready.

We have to stick to HTML/SVG/Javascript/AJAX (and PHP for server side communication) only, otherwise, we will always have to rely on a player "plugin" for every browser to add support. And as we have been shown, its near impossible to keep these players up to date. ]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:08:02 +0000 Youtube is from Google and maybe Google want to help or sponsor it.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:11:10 +0000
But even without that in place, most uses of flash (menu's and such), should already be possible, and in a way that works everywhere]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:09:39 +0000
In other words you're allowed to use whatever file format you like and it is up to browsers to support it. With images things seem to have stabilised around JPEG, GIF and PNG, however for video there is still a large amount of flux. Whatever format is chosen, there is no certainty that standards-compliant browsers can play it.

The logic used is that HTML standards are supposed to be around for a very long time, so enforcing our current codecs on people years from now wouldn't be desirable, nor would having to support a ton of legacy video formats if future HTML revisions keep adding more as they're discovered. Whether this is the best argument to use I don't know, but it is the one which has won.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:59:52 +0000
the first one should be, using arrow brackets instead of normal brackets: (img src='my_pic.jpg /)

the second one should be: (img src='my_pic_in_an_obscure_format.zxq' /)]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:02:21 +0000 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:07:49 +0000
Thats true warbo, but the reality is that we still will support them anyway (because we all have dozens of encoded movies, and need to play video CD's and such). For the player, we could always stick to MPEG/VORBIS standards by default (and warn users against embedding other formats). And then we just need to ensure that browsers try to maintain support for mpeg/vorbis.

That wouldn't be too hard. And its better then maintaining 10 generations of FLV file in a flash-like player.

]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:58:53 +0000 The only run anywhere ,no-lock-in rich internet platform

It can create output as a HTML file (using HTML,SVG,Javascript & AJAX)]]> Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:21:09 +0000 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:11:58 +0000
To stop being pragmatic for a moment and take a trip to dreamland, I'd gladly give my time for any Free Software project trying to implement XHTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, MNG, SMIL, ECMAScript, XMPP and RDF. The technological ideals embodied in those standards would mean a rich web indeed. Alas, I doubt we'll see it until we get an AI which can read the specs and go "Oh, I get it" :P]]> Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:32:18 +0000 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:15:14 +0000
In terms of video, Firefox 3.1 will be implementing the new HTML standard which officially adds video support.]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:08:13 +0000
N00bs always complain about having to install plugins and multimedia codecs from the restricted extras package ...and rightly so. I hope that a complete browser plugin & codec solution can be included along with the default browser on a standard installation (as an optional install feature).
]]> Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:26:15 +0000 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:04:27 +0000 Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:16:28 +0000
a) I don't really need to randomly comment for no purpose
b) I have seen a few cases now of people implementing stuff for brainstorm (by me inclusive). Every time people do nothing but vote it down. In my case in particular, my program solved MANY important problems. People did not give it the light of day, hence why there is no reason I would touch this idea.
c) Whilst such a converter or exporter for the flash design tool could easily generate a lot of income, Canonical doesn't seem to have the resources for it. I now personally believe it has more to do with mismanagement of resources though. Heres ubuntuheres libnotifyHeres the rest of Canonical's resources. Whilst there are critical problems still in the main distro, Canonical seems to be forking off onto netbook remix's and such.

The problem with doing so is that by doing so, they are ending up with a few average products, rather then at least one really good one. Until there is one which is excellent on all accounts, I don't think that the resources squandered on stuff like landscape would be better spent. In the long run landscape is great, but at the moment, it doesn't really fit in.


My opinion though. But like mentioned. Not eager to code another product for a negative crowd. If I did, the moment an issue was found they would write it off. ]]> Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:06:15 +0000
fixed:
=====
I'm Auzy (changed my nick ages ago), and it hasn't been abandoned.

a) I don't really need to randomly comment for no purpose
b) I have seen a few cases now of people implementing stuff for brainstorm (by me inclusive). Every time people do nothing but vote it down. In my case in particular, my program solved MANY important problems. People did not give it the light of day, hence why there is no reason I would touch this idea.
c) Whilst such a converter or exporter for the flash design tool could easily generate a lot of income, Canonical doesn't seem to have the resources for it. I now personally believe it has more to do with mismanagement of resources though. Whilst there are critical problems still in the main distro, Canonical seems to be forking off onto netbook remix's and such. By doing so, they are ending up with a few average products, rather then at least one really good one. Until there is one which is excellent on all accounts, I don't think that the resources squandered on stuff like landscape, because you need to generate an aura of "we code amazing products" first. In the long run landscape is great, but at the moment, it doesn't really fit in.


My opinion though. Not personally eager to code another product for a negative crowd. And at the moment, I'd probably code it with cross platform in mind, but judging by the reception I got for the other stuff I coded in the past, I personally would focus on windows support foremost. Its difficult to crack the market of a distribution which is overly focused on cutting features out to fit on an out of date media format]]> Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:46:01 +0000