This table seems like a load of crap to me. Perhaps especially the "supporting apps" section. Despite the fact that it's supported in nearly every application which supports image files, they list "21", whereas they say "164" for doc! Also, they list HTML as "outdated or deprecated", and they say that doc is not a complex format; they are out of their minds.
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.
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.
This chart is so nonesense. HTML is deprecated? Really? And how is having more versions a higher risk of obsolescence, but having /multiple specifications/ reduces risk?
Also, EMEs exist in all major browsers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Encrypted_M...