Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
mailinglists at vinnl.nl
Thu Jan 14 14:00:43 UTC 2010
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Alexander Blomen <info at ablomen.nl> wrote:
> I have 2 points from a webdeveloper's point of view about chrom[e|ium].
> At this time google uses the heavily patented H.264 codec for HTML5
> video tags (and for this it depends on ffmpeg btw).
> Firefox uses ogg/theora, which in my point of view, is much better for
> the web and the open source community as a whole.
> It also does not jet support the css @font-face tag by default for
> embedding fonts in websites, while this might be only a problem for
> webdevelopers, it does force you to make the choice between flash (which
> is bad, mkay) or just ignoring chrome users (which from a design
> standpoint is not really an option).
> So while I agree that chrome is much and much faster, and v8 is a great
> an impact on everyone using the web and especially the ones that prefer
> FOSS to propertary, patented or any other form of non-free software.
Chromium uses Ogg in addition to H.264, so while that might stimulate the
use of that patented codec it doesn't prevent usage of Ogg. I also wouldn't
be afraid that including it in Xubuntu will impact the move of the web
towards open codecs a lot.
Webdevelopers not being able to include their own fonts has been a problem
for years, so it isn't heavily used yet. Therefore I think Xubuntu users
won't really be disadvantaged (you still have this problem with all the
copies of IE6 floating around anyway), and having some websites using the
fallback font really isn't a blocker. Besides, I think it's reasonable to
expect this to be supported in a reasonable amount of time - perhaps even
before Lucid (or Lucid+1) is released. Every browser has disadvantages like
> Just my 2 cents.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xubuntu-devel