Wow. that chart is misleading. They consider "No Digital Rights Information" to be a high risk factor. Bias much?
And it's not even correct, with plugins with PDFs. They can have DRM junk encrusted on them.
And it's not even correct, with plugins with PDFs. They can have DRM junk encrusted on them.
Also, EMEs exist in all major browsers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_M...
Also, they say "SXW (OpenOffice documents)" even though StarOffice had switched to Open Document Foundation formats before they were branded Oracle Open Office.
Almost everything these "researchers" needed to know to discredit their own paper can be read on Wikipedia with little to no effort.
Almost every value on this chart ranges from bogus to infuriating.
Which one? Firefox or Chromium-WebKit or Explorer?
Very much, but this chart, and I would say the article is pretty much complete garbage.
Yes, we collectively should save Flash content for its posterity of the older web. But that's a big thing for Archive.org to handle. And I'm sure we can construct a VM to download and use flash content. The only gotcha there, is content that streams from a remote server. The VM would likely be without any networking support, to prevent easily hacked machines (the major reason why we collectively dumped flash).
Also HTML is apparently more complex than JPEG and MP3. I'll remember that next time I"m hand-coding some audio files and using a machine to generate HTML.
That killed all credibility that table has.