[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:48:15 -0800 (PST), m a r l o n . n e l s o n <thesardonicwon@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Anyway, i think it would serve much better if we were to concern
> ourselves more with the marriage of technologies, as opposed to the
> conflict(s) of good/bad dichotomies, etc.
Yup. I thought Tim O'Reilly's comment to the effect "explain why DHTML
is good and Flash is bad" was pretty thought provoking. As I understand
it,
serious "rich internet applications" are a lot easier to write in a
portable way
with Flash than DHTML, even though flash is proprietary and DHTML is
standardized. On one hand, it's not a "problem" because XML is just the
data and doing what it is supposed to do. On the other hand, the XML-based
UI technologies such as XHTML+SVG+whatever seem to be losing
the mindshare race in a big way.
It's odd how Macromedia has quietly out-Microsofted Microsoft here :-)
One wonders how they got away with it. I guess the tried and true way --
one little increment at a time, all the while denying the intent to want to own
more than they already own. Oh yeah, and the tried and true "give away
the razor (browser plugin) and sell the blade (authoring tools)".
Given that Macromedia (unlike, ahem, others that come to mind) don't seem
to want to use their monopoly in one area to drag us kicking and screaming
into their future monopolies in other areas, what besides the "political
and
religious" objections are there to using Flash for rich internet apps? The
main one that comes to mind is that I can sortof imagine DHTML+SVG
scaling to a mobile platform or porting to a brand new OS that Macromedia
hasn't gotten around to supporting yet. Others?
|
