Re: [xml-dev] XML, Rich Internet Apps

["m a r l o n . n e l s o n" <thesardonicwon@yahoo.com>]

> "...what besides the "political and religious" objections are there to using Flash for rich internet apps?

i still do not see the need to even have objections to such apps.  The fact of the matter is (imo), all the rich Internet apps and such, simply comes down to a matter of personal taste.  Though there is a good deal of Rich Media sites on the Web, i think these sites for the most part, target individuals that seek that kind of thing.  The thing that really bugs me though, are those sites that use Rich Media technologies in manners inconsistent with current standards, too much of this, that, and the third. Another thing is the sites that try to implement the technologies, but fall short of good design, development, and delivery principles. 

> "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."

Now that would be an interesting thing to see.  My concern with that though, is more so on the DHTML side of things.  i think that we would definately have to see improvements in the overall acceptance (browser/platform) of DHTML technologies and/or maybe a *new DHTML*, one that ports well to all appliances.  The DHTML stands today would not allow that -- far-and-wide.

> Others?

What i would also find interesting would be a wider range of Rich apps on moblie devices that do not sacrifice speed, loadtime, quality, or some such.  In this case, i guess only time will tell.

 

One,

 

 Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org> wrote:

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?





-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an
initiative of OASIS

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager:

-- m a r l o n . n e l s o n
-- W e b . D e v e l o p e r
-- San Francisco, CA
-- www.animantix.com
-- http://www26.brinkster.com/specter1

-- Our greatest enemy [threat], lies
-- hidden amongst those we trust most.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now