dawn wrote:
[snips for clarity]
I think what you mean is that as of this point forward, 100% of all
current browsers will support HTML5 versus xx% for any plugin, so it's
a no brainer for developers and zero-deployment for end-users.

How is that any better than what we have now where everyone has HTML4?

Look, there will aways be supplements to the core. For HTML4 that
includes jQuery, YUI, Prototype, Flash, Silverlight, applets, even the
Omnis Studio plugin. Now some of the power of Flash is being put into
the core. Silverlight grew in response to deficiencies in the core
and other plugins. But now the providers of all of these supplements
need to ask themselves what value-add they provide. They must now add
value to the new core, or go find something else to do. I have no
doubt we'll see new extensions, whether they're called plugins or
whether they get loaded from every site with every uncached page load.

That's what this is about. It's not about how evil plugins are.
Plugins are an implementation of a paradigm. If you're arguing about
plugins in general you're missing the whole point because plugins of
some kind will always exist.

HTML5 is deficient now and it will always have some flaws and
deficiencies in the eyes of some people. there will always be a need
and desire for alternatives. What this thread started to be about,
before this huge digression, is what value Silverlight can provide
over HTML5 now and in the future, and whether Microsoft is conceding
defeat in the face of competition from the core. Unfortunately it
seems that whole thing has been lost here.


I never speak in absolutes.

How about this - you are in agreement with a 25 percentile that does
not have Silverlight installed, and you are in the 90+ percentile of
those who use Flash. You're in good company.

Personally I see "only" 75% adoption of Silverlight and the technology
has only recently (IMO) seemed worthy for business use. But for my
clients doing web development, I put Flash, Silverlight, and other
client-side options on the table (read my blog) - and now HTML5 is on
the table too. My recommendation is to approach each one of these
options with full understanding. This is significantly different from
[sic] "I don't know what it is but I don't like it, so I won't use it
on my PC, I won't use it to create business solutions, and I'll try to
keep anyone I know from using it too".

"Know yourself. Know the enemy. Know the terrain" - Sun Tzu

Please thank your husband for allowing me to argue with you like we're
an old married couple. Next lunch opportunity is on me. Apologies to
our colleagues who have suffered through this.

T

Tony, why do you do this with everyone?

"Jeff Caspari" wrote:
Dawn teaches Java and JavaScript. She has positioned herself as
someone with a valued opinion on that topic. When she separates Java
from this discussion of plugins, while other referenced authorities
clearly include it and it's easy to verify by looking in the menu for
any browser, my focus is suddenly shifted to wondering how I can have
a fact based discussion with someone who refutes easily provable facts
- and I share that angst.

All of us are here for either business and/or pleasure, watching or
participating in discussions which are informative and/or fun and
lively. I have no problem with opinions based on facts or simple
errors from someone who doesn't know a lot about a topic. But I have
low tolerance for full out wrong statements published by someone
claiming some degree of authority, especially when published as a
correction to someone else's factual statements. When that happens
the discussion is derailed, we are neither being educated nor
entertained, and yes, my tone changes. You'll find that this is the
only situation where I "do this".

Regards,
T

Scratch "- and I share that angst" which was there from a copy/paste.

On 6/13/11 5:29 PM, Tony Gravagno wrote:
I thought you were sharing it with us(!)

--
frosty

"Tony Gravagno" <tony_gravagno (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote

A little feedback...

When you do this it sounds arrogant and I can't imagine that's how you
really want to sound.

Jeff

On Jun 14, 7:14*am, "Jeff Caspari" <mu... (AT) idt (DOT) net> wrote:
I don't think he does and I can roll with it, but I'll grant that he
might do better to try to figure out why an otherwise seemingly
reasonable person might say something with which he disagrees. I did
not look it up, but I know what was in my head when I said something
about Java with which he disagreed. The issue might be that I do not
know how the Silverlight "add-in" works and I have not even looked it
up. I just think of it as a .net extension of the browser. It might
not be that at all -- it might be a completely separate run-time
environment, but I thought I saw a "Silverlight page" and thought it
had the appearance of being a page running in the browser (I no longer
have silverlight installed, so I'm just plain ignorant on the
silverlight side of things).

When it comes to Java, I am not quite a ignorant. I am quite sure that
any Java plug-ins are intended simply to launch a run-time environment
OUTSIDE OF the browser, not within it. Do I have this wrong? My
understanding is that even applets are deprecated and now redirected
to external JVMs, outside of the browser. There are JVM's (Java
virtual machines) in which Java runs (such as the JRE, Java Run-time
engine). I think of these as the Java variation on a p-machine. These
are not web browser run-time engines nor do they really relate to the
browser in any way other than browsers possibly having plug-ins from
which to launch a JVM. In addition to the JVM is the Android run-time
environment, the Dalvik virtual machine. Under no cases do relevant,
modern Java applications run within a browser with or without a plug-
in, although historically one could run applets within browsers (but
who has written a business applet in the past, well, decade?)

Do I have this all wrong, Tony? Maybe I am saying it wrong. I stay as
high up in the network layers as I can, so perhaps I'm thinking of
this too much like an end-user developer sort of person. Please give
me more precise information on what I am missing regarding the Java
run-time options. Is there an option to run Java within a browser
(with some plug-in that extends the browser to run Java bytecode?) or
what was it you are sure is the case that I am missing? Thanks. --
dawn

> Jeff

On Jun 23, 3:19*pm, dawn <dawnwolth... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
I know there are folks still writing applets, even if not a lot of
them, so I should perhaps not state this as forcefully as I did.
Applets still do run "in a browser." I suspect I am saying this wrong.
Java runs in a Java Virtual Machine as its run-time container. The
browser might have a JVM in some way connected to it (for applets),
but the run-time environment for Java _applications_ is a JVM and not
a browser.

In any case, I would prefer to be corrected on this point as I do not
wish to have a misconception of it. If there is an actual browser
application, even if one using a browser add-in, where the browser is
the run-time environment (and the user can hit the back button etc),
where Java is the primary language used, Java is typically in the
middle tier, rather than Java bytecode being in the front-end
application shown in the user browser. Again, please correct me if I
am either wrong or saying this wrong. I would like to be precise about
it. Thanks. --dawn