Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> I REALLY hope I'm wrong and that SVG+XUL+XForms are where HTML was in 1994 or
> so. But the fact remains that if one were to deploy a rich client app in
> Flash today, it would run on something like 99% of the browsers out there.
> If one were to deploy a XUL+SVG rich client app, it would run on something
> like 1/10 of 1% of the browsers out there. I'm all for betting on the
> underdog, but three orders of underdogness magnitude?
Your numbers are slightly exaggerated :) Doing a rich client in any version of
Flash prior to v6 is a herculean task, the kind that you do once and give up on,
or go insane and start dribbling Macromedia marketing material at random hours
under the full moon. So you'd have to take Flash 6 penentration into account. On
the other hand, SVG has more than 0.1% thanks to the fact that ASV v2 was
shipped with Acrobat Reader 5.0 and pretty much all Adobe products around that time.
It's still probably far away from where I'd like to see it, but there's no
reason to make the gap look larger than it is.
> So,I'm (very reluctantly) concluding that the short term smart money is on
> Flash; the long term hope is on the XML-based UI technolgies.
How frequently are people putting money on internet-wide rich client apps? I
haven't seen many of those flower in the past few years. I have, however, seen
many bloom on the intranet, ie within sufficiently controlled environments that
SVG can easily be used. And I don't think anyone is seriously considering Flash
in that (large) market. All I've heard about apart from SVG is DHTML and Java
> And I very
> strongly agree with Paul that a necessary condition for us to get to that
> long term vision is for the alternative browser developers and the XHTML
> folks to get their heads together, define problems that end users need to
> have solved, and go out and solve them together. Ann will probably laugh that
> they can't deprecate a bit of markup without getting screamed at, so how can
> they do something truly visionary? I guess I'm saying to ignore the
> screamers; XHTML 2 as an incremental tweak to XHTML 1 is going to be ignored
> by 99% of the users and the dominant browser developer, so why not just focus
> on the 1% and do something that will amaze them?
I couldn't agree more. Let'em scream their lungs out and give us XHTML to "wow"
about, just like when SVG 1.0 came out!
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488