Don't fix what isn't broken

Flash is dead, people don't learn how to use it anymore.
Flash needs to allow very big webms and maybe basic scripting for them (to loop parts of videos or add filters to it, for example),

>>334416
You don't, because people will begin to question why we even still have a flash board to begin with and one day it might just be removed.

Keep it quiet, keep it under wraps.

would adding html support help?

>>334424
It's not broken but it is a shadow of its former self. It doesn't have to be though.

Flash is dead, let the board die in glory.

Don't fix what isn't broken you fucking retard.

>>334428
>it is a shadow of its former self.
It's really not.

because html5 is superior and your a dumbass for using flash in 2015

>>334416
>fix /f/

WHAT'S THE MATTER?

TOO GAY FOR YOU?

>>338527
I like /f/ but damn you fucking right.
/f/ like repost that *daily dose* everyday.
Creativity is die.

>>338622
piccolo dick is a timeless 4chan classic like hood edits where in their days

>>334416
If you want to fix /f/ you need to figure out how to fix flash.
I suggest a re imagination of the board, change it to something like /ani/ - animation

File: 2000px-Adobe_Systems_logo_and_wordmark.svg[1].png (91 KB, 2000x2000) Image search: [Google]

91 KB, 2000x2000

hey guys whatsgoinon ITT?

>>339446
>add support for HTML pages
>convert legacy SWF files to HTML for display
It would take work but is possible.

>>339467
>support for HTML pages is added
>two days later, 4chan is hacked. Flashing dog dicks everywhere and CP showing on the frontpage.
I don't think this is a good ideia, Anon.

>>339518
¿? I'm pretty sure swfs are less safe than html.

and the idea is to upload files, 4chan would merely host them

>>334426
Adobe (flash) said they aren't adding support for WebMs.
However, the guys over at SWFChan made their own system for doing that.

We definitely do not need scripting in videos.
We need to make a new format for that. WebI or something.
It could be a subset of the HTML5 canvas and video element, with basic JS, solely for making interactive videos.

It's not like it hasn't been done before by the W3C and WHATWG, the WebWorker spec that lets you define a separate JavaScript thread has a subset of JavaScript that works in it. You can't use anything that refers to the DOM, I don't even think you can use objects in it if I remember correct. It was a while since I tested them out.
Another JS subset just for it would be great.

As it is, HTML5 will NOT replace Flash any time soon.
It creates a spaghetti of separate files that all need to be served separately, or mushed together in a much larger file (even if you use Base91 encoding)
You can't embed direct binary in HTML files, it breaks out JS enclosures and quotes, and breaks the parser. I know, I tried to do it before.

>>339535
They really aren't.
Full JS access is seriously fucking bad.
That is why a subset of the JS spec would need to be made for a sole animated video format.
Flash is actually as safe as it gets compared to full JS. Holy shit full JS can do so much bad shit.

There IS a JS Library that can emulate Flash so you users don't need to have it installed, but so far it is still early days in its development.
More advanced flash features don't work yet.

We really need a whole new spec for animated HTML5 content.
As I said earlier in this post, HTML5 is just not suited to being any decent Flash replacement.
The lack of being able to make it a single, simple file, is what puts off massive numbers of people from using it, especially portal websites that actually host these things.
But the full JavaScript abilities of them make it a security nightmare. Even with Sandboxed Iframe.

>>339548
>We definitely do not need scripting in videos.
I disagree, scripting would be useful to create loops, jump to other parts of the video, add some interactions, etc.

>>339548
isn't there a way to host them without it affecting the site at all?

like, I dunno, put them all in a renamed zip like a comics do and make the users download and load it when he clicks it.

I have barely any idea of how all this works, I'm just brainstorming

>>339550
Yes, but a separate format for that would be better.
Having one grand video format to be the end of all formats is a horrible idea.
The overhead of having a parser running on all videos is simply Not Good.

.webI would be a better idea.
A format specifically tailored for animation with access to SVG, Canvas, CSS animation and a webm, webp and weba binary blob, and a subset of JS that only has access to these features, basic math, timers and event handlers for clicks, controllers, dragging, input devices like cameras (with security like Flash has now) and so on.

>>339552
It could be done.
There are many JavaScript libraries for decompressing RARs, ZIPs and 7ZIPs.
A lot of games and programs basically do this now, then rename it.

However, this only gets around the single-file problem, there is also now the issues of allowing full JavaScript running on a page.
You could embed it in a sandboxed iframe which allows you to disable some features of JS.
However, look at /f/ now. You can embed a flash in the page you are on by clicking the embed button, but if you middle-click a flash, it opens in a new tab. That now gives a flash full access, which is not really much. But imagine if that was a full webpage instead.
Someone could then just upload something like last measure and completely fuck your browser 10 ways from sunday.
It is sad that the working groups for JS haven't even bothered their asses in fixing the issues that last measure bring up with regards to JavaScript and how it can lock a person out from doing anything.
Even with all the recent changes aimed at securing JS, it is still SO BROKEN.

>>339561
>Someone could then just upload something like last measure and completely fuck your browser 10 ways from sunday.

ohh I see what you mean. I though you meant JS being a danger to 4chan itself.

btw, /f/ can still fuck you up. there's tab and new page spam scripts around.

>>339548
>HTML5 will NOT replace Flash any time soon

Are you serious? It already is. Name one big company/website that isn't planning on or hasn't already moved from flash to HTML5.

>>339723
He meant that for (vector) animations.