[tomlin]

People should try to understand that the need for the capabilities of Flash and Flash itself are being lopped together in a single, partisan viewpoint. Regretfully.

There is a need for crazy, highly interactive studio/movie sites, webcam support on the web, cross-browser reliability, fast drawing for animation and games, cross-browser 3D, audio API. Saying that these features will come one day is not an answer. "You don't need those features because..." is also not an answer. The OP's points are no more constructive that those who have answers like these against Flash.

Criticizing HTML5 means you are pro-Flash. Which means you are wrong and all of your points are invalid. Even if you're not pro-Flash.

[lwhi]

Huh? I would have thought that criticising HTML5 and providing valid reasoning means you think negatively about HTML5.

The problem is, the author hasn't backed up anything. There's no real valid criticism other than conjecture.

[tomlin]

> I would have thought that criticising HTML5 and providing valid reasoning means you think negatively about HTML5

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Not offering criticism isn't supportive, it's religious. Being willfully blind to huge holes in necessary support won't make HTML5 better.

> The problem is, the author hasn't backed up anything.

It's not a research paper for a scientific discovery. It's an opinion on the state of HTML5. The OP doesn't need to back it up since proof of his points are rampantly apparent and readily available, cognitive dissonance excluded.

If you want HTML5 to get better, you should ask that it is better. Turning a blind eye is just foolish.

[lwhi]

I have no idea how or why you've reached any of these conclusions; but in any case - good luck to you.

[tomlin]

It might be slightly ironic that you've pointed out the OP's lack of proof, as it were, while you yourself have trouble upholding your own arguments.