A quick glance at articles like this
http://www.crn.com.au/News/260027,si...8-roadmap.aspx
and the Windows 8 roadmap & videos that have been released so far are
obviously causing concern for some, though I suspect a larger legion
welcomes the move adopt a more open approach and embracing the power
that HTML5 will bring to the web

HOWEVER, I suspect that Microsoft will move quickly to address this
concern in the community, with a response other than taking down
forums!

I'm getting the "here we go again" feeling.

These days Microsoft isn't dictating how things should be done.
They're offering options and leaving it to developers to decide which
approach they'd like to take. Dare I say, it's a "you choose the
'right tools for the job'" approach.

So if they don't mention Silverlight when discussing HTML5, I think
they're just not conveying the right Marketing message in line with
their demonstrated approach to providing solutions. That's more
likely than an awkwardly released statement that they're going to
suddenly deprecate this tool they've been pushing for the last few
years.

Why do I believe this?

Among other things, HTML5 intends to address issues with existing
plugins, and indeed the very reason why plugins exist. HTML5 has a
lot of neat features, but it's not going to be mature for several
years, if ever. Some say 'maybe' 2022. Now, Silverlight also
addresses issues with plugins like Flash and Java Applets. There is
probably going to be a never ending series of some technology being
created to overcome the deficiencies of its predecessors. That's just
the way this market works. For now and the foreseeable future
however, Silverlight and Flash do present value-add over the new and
adolescent HTML5. HTML5 may or may not ever achieve the same level of
cross-platform compatibility, or the rich set of features offered by
plugins. We have choices we can make and alternatives should our
choices go bad. I think Microsoft sees this, and anyone would be
short-sighted to assume they're giving up as soon as they see some
impending competition. That just doesn't fit their pattern.

So here are some truths which we I believe we can derive from all of
this:
HTML4 isn't going away for a long time.
HTML5 isn't going to be implemented (the same) in all browsers for a
long time.
Plugins aren't going away for a long time.
There will always be something new to get people's panties bunched up.

HTH
T


Ross Ferris wrote:

On Jun 10, 1:08*am, Tony Gravagno <tony_grava... (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid>
wrote:
I agree completely with Tony's posting. Also, it's not just about the
content of the technology, but as applications developers, it's also
about the tools and development infrastructure that accompany the
technology. Silverlight has a fantastic story with regards to both of
these. I'm (fairly) sure that HTML5 will ultimately be a great
success - but it's got a way to travel yet before I'd start investing
heavily in line of business application development based on the
technology.

Here's a link to a video that I found very relevant to this subject
area.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX11/HTM14

-David

On Jun 9, 5:53*pm, Ross Ferris <ro... (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au> wrote:
Yes, I understood why MS went the Silverlight route and why some folks
followed them that direction, but I never liked it. It will still be a
good choice (well, IMO it was rarely the right choice) for some
organizations. It only makes sense to focus on html 5, however. It is
so much more difficult to remove old technology than to introduce new
that I'm sure Silverlight will be around for a long time. There are
very few companies who would be well-served by choosing it at this
point in time for an internet (compared to intranet) application. It
also often makes good sense to choose an intranet platform on which
you can develop intranet apps too, should you need them.

HTML 5 means at least two different things.

1. Using an html5 doctype on your pages. We have decided to head this
direction, a decision that is almost a no-brainer. We have pages
running in quirks mode and it would be unwise to move them to an html
4 or xhtml 1 doctype. An html5 doctype isn't really a doctype at all
-- it makes it so we never have to get into the doctype world, simply
ditch quirks mode.

2. New html features that work only with html5. These take more work
to provide cross-browser support, with many features having no
backward compatibility, failing differently in different browsers. Of
course there are various tricks to address some of these. In this
case, we do use the <canvas> tag on one page that is not reached by
users not logged in and having certain privileges, so we can tell them
to use a browser that works with the <canvas> tag. Adding specific
html 5 features is a bigger decision than the very easy decision (in
my opinion) to start moving toward an html 5 doctype.

I would think that everyone choosing a doctype right now who did their
research would arrive at the conclusion that there was no reason to do
either quirks mode or a doctype other than html 5.

Well, Silverlight, I never liked you for that short time you were
considered a mainstream approach and I will not be sorry to hear less
about you and more about html 5 from Microsoft, should that be the
direction. cheers! --dawn

"Ross Ferris" wrote in message
news:6bdf113a-b335-48b9-8eab-283ea4db8122 (AT) y27g2000prb (DOT) googlegroups.com...

I kind of wonder for what reason the average data entry screen could or
would make any use of Silverlight anyway?

I mean, for CRUD type of screens, and things like drop down menus, the
current tools and using AJAX does a fine job anyway.

I am using Access + office 365 (in beta). Publishing the MS Access forms to
the web resulting in forms that work fine on my iPad and even my smartphone.

No ActiveX or Silverlight is required. I guess I saying that for most data
entry type of screens, one does not need flash, or Silverlight.

Here is a video of using MS Access, and at the half way point, I switch to
running the application in a browser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU4mH0jPntI

When you publish the Access form, it does become a true .net XAML form
(zammel).

So this form is AJAX, and it behaves very much like a desktop type of
application. It responds rather well the code written in the form is
JavaScript. That means editing and often much of the update and interaction
in the form occurs local in the browser without a round trip to the server.
No flash or Silverlight is required for this to occur.

I guess what I saying is unless you building something that specifically
needs Silverlight, then for the most part, building web forms in .net, or
building web forms in Access will not care about the lack of Silverlight
since they do not need Silverlight anyway.

I will agree that commitment to flash or something Silverlight has to be
done with good thought and is in fact a big deal.

However, one ONLY should adopt flash or Silverlight if it was a MUST have
feature.

I mean, the iPhone and iPad do not support flash anyway.

Unless the developers here are building applications that need Silverlight,
I cannot say it much of a issue when using standard tools, even the ones
from Microsoft's stable.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal (AT) msn (DOT) com

I'll preface this one with a reminder that I don't use Silverlight yet
for projects. Versions 1 to 2 had primitive control types, not suited
for business applications. Version 3 took steps in the right
direction, but I saw it as a v1.0 for the business audience. v4 made
huge advances and I personally see this as the first release beyond
the adolescent stage which I'd consider suitable for business. That's
just my take, YMMV. I'm just clarifying that I have no particular axe
to grind for or against this technology.

"Albert D. Kallal" wrote:

The existence of term "RIA", for Rich Internet Application, is the
very definition, the raison d'être for these offerings, isn't it?
Silverlight is a tool created to facilitate development of data entry
screens, as well as screens for other purposes.

I'd think that anyone using AccuTerm GUI now to create an attractive
desktop UI would see the value in Silverlight to do the exact same
thing in a browser - as would anyone using Viságe, DesignBais,
FlashCONNECT, Zen, Coyote, mvDesigner, SB+, etc etc.


What current tools do you have in mind? The Pick-based tools
mentioned above? Pick-based tools help to keep Pick as the center of
all of all development, but they don't help companies looking to make
Pick merely a component in a mainstream environment. Silverlight and
Flash have no client-side or server-side licensing where some of the
MV-based tools do. There are other pro/con arguments with Pick tools
vs mainstream.

But not trying to diverge from what I think is your technical point,
sure, Silverlight and other competing mainstream tools all do menus
and Ajax, etc. But given the tools available the market, which ones
are Pick people using? Most Pick people I know have no idea how to
use Ajax at the code level, never mind optimizing it for real world
applications. So what else would someone use?

I'd submit that Silverlight is just another competing option, and it
happens to have advantages and disadvantages just like any other. I'm
not arguing For Silverlight in this case, just saying it's a viable
option amongst others. Competition is good, right? It looks like
you're saying there's no need for competition because there's already
offerings, errr competition, in that space. Well, some of the other
offerings are horrible. That's why they aren't used by some people.
That's why so many people use Silverlight. Obviously a significant
number of developers see some value that you're not seeing yet.

Just consider this - if everything was so hunkydory with existing
tools, then why are we even discussing HTML5? Obviously there is room
for improvement all the way around.

General comment for this thread:

As I said, I haven't swallowed all the Kool-Aid yet either, but
observations of the outside world compel me, and I hope others, toward
further inquiry. So far I haven't seen a comment of any kind Against
Silverlight, only statements like "why would anyone use it?" and "I
wouldn't use it". Well, that's not compelling in either direction.
Can we get some solid statements here with specific reasoning? Or is
everyone who is not using plugin technology really completely
oblivious to what this stuff is? Are we really just continuing the
old thread about how evil plugins are? Read my blog where I compare
plugins and discuss the topic. Open a book. Get educated about your
options before stating an opinion on them!



I tend to agree - one does not Need the plugin, but it's an option.
My personal preference so far has been to Ajaxify ASP.NET Web Forms.
I'm not even doing MVC yet because that's just another option I have
chosen not to adopt yet.

You're right that a plugin isn't necessary IF you know how to code
without it. But if you do not, then plugins help to manage the async
model PLUS they present a generic cross-browser API to the developer
which (still to some extent) warrants browser-specific development
with many popular tools. They ALSO present features that are not
currently available in all browsers. This thread is about that gap
closing between plugin features and built-in HTML5 features.

....
Again, that's correct. However, one of the issues with thin-client
development is that they need to be "chatty" to move data to the
server for complex processing beyond basic validation. Plugins handle
that on the client, and Silverlight allows developers to make this
happen using the same code they use on the server. There is
significant value in these features for many applications.


Agreed again - right tool for the job and all that...

Err, that's a political decision from Apple which is strongly
contested by the development community. Can we just forget you put
that one on the table?


Hmm, what is "standard"? Aren't plugins now "standard"? Statistics
show that nearly 100% of browsers out there now have either or both
Flash/Silverlight. Silverlight is as much a household word amongst
developers as ASP.NET, for those who would use such words in their
household.

I understand you're regarding "standard" as traditional hand-coded
JavaScript and DHTML, but everywhere you turn there are frameworks,
new helper libraries, developer tools intended to facilitate that
mess, and upline tools intended to reduce the mess itself. I'd
maintain that Silverlight and Flash are now as "standard" tools as any
other. They fit into this ecosystem for some applications because
they do indeed have a place here.

My summary on this note to you, Albert, would be that we are not in
disagreement that the right tools should be selected, but that you
seem to be inclined to take some tools off the table because you don't
see their value. That's pretty myopic, bud. We can debate the merits
of features, but it's too late and closed-minded to debate whether
some offering should exist at all.

Regards,
T

On Jun 11, 5:01*pm, Tony Gravagno <tony_grava... (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
Yes and no. I would not classify plugins as "evil" but as detrimental
to deployment to a wide audience. I'm talking as both a s/w
professional and as someone who is supporting my parents using a
browser. This is no small task, even for a professional ;-) Every
browser, every browser version, and every plug-in is significant. Now
deploy software that everyone, including other people's parents will
be using and this issue could be the reason they do not successfully
use your web site.

So, yes, call this download of the .net runtime environment that
greatly extends the browser container for "web apps" a "plug-in" but
it is a big deal plug-in. If you are writing internet applications
that cross generations and user aptitudes, cross operating systems,
cross browsers as well as browser versions and need to work for all of
the above, then count me out for a solution like Silverlight. If, on
the other hand, your application will be run only within the confines
of a company with central support for the client environments and
there is no good business reason you would want to deploy beyond this,
then Silverlight might be as good a solution as any other run-time
environment that we would not expect a client system to be running
prior to getting set up to use it.

Come on Tony, I'm gonna call you out for this. You didn't really want
to write that, did you? Each of us gets educated in different things.
I don't want to learn all I can learn about Silverlight. I have
learned what I think I need to learn to make a decision about whether
to use Silverlight. I am sticking my neck out with an opinion, as are
others, which is also part of educating ourselves. Stating opinions
while having only partial information is something highly educated
people (oh, and also ALL people) do. Do you consider yourself the only
educated person here? I didn't think so.

Yes, and it is about sticking with the browser as the run-time
environment.

agreed.

Why? It is a valid point. Apple has pretty big marketshare.

Ah Hog wash. Quite a bit more than 0% laptops and desktops were
purchased within the past month or even week. They do not come with
either of these installed.

Oh it is definitely not as much a mystery to developers as it is to
those attempting to use pages developed by developers.

Hey, who doesn't. Then we can always put them back on the table if we
learn something about the tool that we perceive to be of value.

cheers! --dawn

dawn wrote:

I didn't say installed. I'm saying almost everyone who uses a
computer these days will install Flash because almost every site they
visit uses it, particularly Facebook and Youtube.

Take a look at http://www.riastats.com and any other stat site you
care to find. Note that data reported on this site comes from over
100 others.

- Flash was undetected on less than 4% of browsers, indicating 95%+
saturation. That 4% might be those new PCs you're talking about where
the user hasn't played their Facebook games yet, or perhaps corporate
sites that lock down to the bare essentials.
- Silverlight was undetected on 25%, indicating only 75% of browser
users have loaded this plugin. This is no surprise as Silverlight is
still only the contender, and I'd guess this number won't go up much
over time. But a 75% install base is significant.
- Java was undetected in 35%, meaning this once ubiquitous technology
now falls behind Silverlight by 10 points.
- HTML5 (big surprise to me) seems to be present in 75% of browsers.
What surprises me is that this many people actually have current
browsers.

There's no indication as to whether PCs that lacked one technology
have the other - no summary for "any plugin". I wouldn't jump to a
conclusion, but it's possible that 99% of the total number of browers
surveyed have either Flash OR Silverlight OR Java.

Microsoft developers are less inclined to write games than someone who
would use "flashy" Flash. Microsoft developers tend to write more
business apps, and similarly, you don't see as many business apps in
Flash as you do for entertainment. That's just the way the market
rolls. For this reason I expect Silverlight visibility in the
populace to always be much less than Flash, simply because there are
more people out there playing games than using their browsers for line
of business applications. Microsoft would like to change that of
course, but I think politically missed that browser-based
entertainment train a long time ago and will probably never really
catch it. Regardless - their tools are business tools, we're talking
about business, and current stats say they have a respectable 75%
share.


However - We are indeed continuing the old discussion about the evils
of plugins, and now as then I'll say anyone who presents this argument
is in the extreme minority. Grandma plays Farmville, so she's using
Flash. Even if she's not playing games, she's likely to get very
frustrated with the number of sites out there that now require Flash
as a default component of their experience. Browser-based game
providers who deploy Flash apps report tens of millions of users
active 24/7 in _many_ games. That means at any given moment there are
hundreds of millions of people around the world just playing games
with Flash.

The bottom line is simply that most people use plugins in some way.
Your luddite sentiments against plugins in general are now even more
outdated than they were before. It's time to accept the world as it
is and move on.

This is the world as I now understand it:
- HTML1-3 were OK but didn't hit all the marks.
- Java applets were created to fill the gaps.
- HTML4 attempted to improve on its predecessors but didn't adapt for
every increasing demands.
- Independent developers created new frameworks and extensions to the
core.
- Independent companies created plugins to overcome those limitations.
Java applets didn't move forward with them and quickly fell behind.
- W3C et al have now introduced HTML5 to level the field,
incorporating much of what's found in the secondary market. As with
all such efforts this too will probably be OK but not hit all the
marks over time.
- The corporate world will look hard at HTML5 and decide how they are
going to position, compete, and improve their ancillary offerings.
- As developers we need to inform ourselves about the pros and cons of
each option and use the tools which fit both our target audiences and
our own development scenarios.
- Anyone who avoids the facts that the rest of the world discuss every
day will go the way of the Dodo, as have many Pick developers who
still think GUI is a fad and "their" users don't need the same thing
as everyone else in the world.

T

On Jun 12, 12:47*am, Tony Gravagno <tony_grava... (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid>
wrote:
Right, see if you can follow my logic here. When someone gets a new
computer, let's call that day 1. I use computers all the time and hit
flash sites far too often. It is about day 30 for the computer into
which I am typing now. In the past week, I have installed Flash in two
browsers: Chrome and FF4. The first time I installed it was with FF3.
I do not yet know whether it installed in IE 9 at the same time it
installed in FF3. Most of these people getting a computer will not
have flash working in their default browser on day 1, right? How many
will have it by day 7? What is the average day by which the new
computer owner will have flash installed? I have no idea, but I would
not guess that average is prior to Day 30. Some will never click to
install it because they no longer trust clicking anything like that.
That is my point -- the computer does not come with Flash installed,
and those with new computers do not, on the average, install it on day
1. Lots of new computers are sold each day. So this "nearly 100%
figure" is far from accurate. Make sense?

Ah, well, even if I believed that Flash actually functioned properly
on these 95%+ computers, I would be concerned about the other 5%. That
is not all that near 100%, in my opinion. Yesterday Flash would have
been detected on my computer but when I navigated to a web site, I had
to install it.

For a corporate internal web site, that is likely fine, but for a
forward facing application where you want to up the number of users
who will use your app, that really is not good.

Java is not a browser plug-in. It is rarely deployed to "the masses."
Apples and oranges.

I have tested my not-yet-deployed html 5 pages in IE 7, IE 8, IE 9,
FF3, FF4, Safari, and Opera. The only one it isn't looking right in at
this point is IE 9, likely because I have some IE conditional comments
in my template for prior IE issues that might now be cured in IE 9. I
have reason to believe that the page will also work and look ok in IE
6 and FF2. I am CERTAIN that a page with an html 5 doctype that does
not use the new fancy html 5 features will work in far more browsers
than silverlight or flash. HTML 5 is simply non-quirks, non-sgml-
doctype so it just makes things easier for developers who are willing
to use html 5 with some of the fancy stuff on the back burner for now.

Look at google.com -- they want everyone to be able to use their site.
You do not hear about people who are unable to use google, right? Take
a look at their doctype.

Browsers do not "have" Java other than the deprecated Java applets. I
think there is a Java run-time container now that extends the browser
so perhaps there is now a plug-in like silverlight, I dunno, but, if
so, it has almost no installed base. Java is hot re android at this
point and solid for business apps, but it is not a typical client
platform. It is behind the scenes on many web sites.

As soon as business apps need to reach the masses or even small
businesses (is it not typical for a business to have no need to reach
at least the masses of companies out there), it becomes more of a
bummer if the user needs to have silverlight installed.

This might have much to do with what your application is.

I'm a grandma and I've never played farmville, nor has my mom or most
of the people I know. Is it the people who do not live by farms who
play this? ;-)

Bingo!

It is only if you do not "control" the user client environment and if
you really want to provide a good user experience and not
unnecessarily deter people from using your software (web site) that I
would suggest you do not want to write software that requires the user
to install a run-time environment in addition to what they need in a
browser. This is not a religion. I would consider it if the
application warranted this type of potential grief for the end-user.

Sorry gotta run, so I have not gotten to the end. ttfn. --dawn

dawn wrote:
Makes no sense at all. "You" are comfortable loading two browsers as
alternatives to the default. Then you install Flash to the two new
ones you just installed. But you are suddenly uncomfortable
installing flash to the default. And you are aware that you need
plugins for your two other browsers but suddenly unsure that you need
it for the default?

_And_ you assume the average user is going to load other browsers but
have a similar lack of discomfort with installing a plugin with one
that they actually use? When they go to a page that has something
they want to see, they will be prompted to load the plugin! It's
quite simple and only takes a few minutes.

And for our purposes, we're talking about the pros/cons of plugins
line of business apps where using the app mandates a plugin. For
business people use what they're told. I'm just pointing to someone
else's statistics to show plugins are already ubiquitous. There are
MANY sites with stats to confirm this, but somehow your personal
experience with your PC is sufficient to refute actual data gathered?

No, none of what you said makes any sense at all.

Oh fer cripesake, the site you went to required a newer version.
Puleeeeze, I know I don't need to explain that concept to you too.

If you had gone to riastats you'd see that they identified the
versions that people are using - by far most people are using current
plugins. This could be surprising except that it's so easy to
upgrade.

The "other 5%" does not want or need to see Flash content. I will
reiterate here that it's possible that some systems without one plugin
may have another, further reducing that 5%.

If you look at the stats, a couple sites report very few plugins in
use at all. How can that be? I think these sites are server
oriented, not for consumer audiences, and as such the hits they get
are from inhouse admins using business servers, not systems that would
be used for business apps or game apps. If servers like this are
eliminated, the percentage of plugin users would go up. Similarly,
the Silverlight version for Linux is called Moonlight, which is still
behind Silverlight in development and deployment. I believe
eliminating Linux browsers from the stats would increase the
Silverlight percentage of adoption. Eliminating iOS which doesn't
support either platform could increase the overall numbers for both
Flash and Silverlight. My point here is that if you only include the
platforms that support the technology, and the systems which are
likely to use it, then you get higher numbers than the total number of
systems.



My overall points in this discussion are (1) with few exceptions, the
general population has no problem with plugins, and (2) whatever you
use to deploy your apps, if people want your app, they will install
the plugin you tell them to use.

For anyone doing real business here, there's always that fringe 1-5%
who is not going to use your software for some stupid reason. ("We
don't need no newfangled computer thingies here!" "I'm not going to
buy a bigger screen!" "I don't like your colors." "We don't use
Microsoft here." "What do you mean you aren't a Penn State fan?")
You're not going to make those sales no matter what you do. Target
the "real" market. Unfortunately I feel like I'm in a discussion with
that low-end demographic, and I simply wouldn't try to sell anything
I've written to you using these technologies for that reason, even if
I thought you could use it.



When you make statements like that it only reinforces that I'm
fighting with an unarmed opponent. That's not fair to any of us.

http://www.java.com/en/download/help/new_plugin.xml


WHAT? You are certain that if someone doesn't use functionality in an
old browser that they will reach more users? Uh, and if they don't
have a browser at all, by that reasoning, we've reached 100% of the
world population. SUCCESS!


Wrong.
People couldn't use the Google Les Paul logo without Flash:
http://bit.ly/mvrck9
Google phases out browsers that don't support HTML5 on August 1st:
http://bit.ly/jV3mX7

You were saying?


65% market share isn't bad for being non-typical. Again, people use
what's required.


That makes no sense. It's a bummer that we need a computer, a
browser, a mouse. It's a bummer that people need to type in a URL or
read documentation. It's a bummer that Google is going to force
anyone who uses their service to use a current browser as of August
1st. My main points are still valid, and further substantiated by
Google. We spend more time reading or writing any one CDP posting
than it takes to load a plugin. That's the bummer.

You're chonically imposing your preferences as a consumer on other
developers despite overwhelming statistics. You don't mind installing
two new browsers and then loading pluginX to them, but you stop at
loading pluginY, and you cite this as reasoning why it's a bummer for
developers to use pluginY.

Give us some solid reasoning pro or con for Flash, Silverlight, or
HTML5. Bummer doesn't cut it. Aside from one person's opinion,
trivial in the worldwide perspective and completely invalid for
general business decisions, you've contributed nothing to this
discussion.


Right - it's tens of millions of cityfolk.
Once again, this isn't about YOU.


I was inferring that grandma basically can't use the internet because
Flash is used in most popular sites. Because of this, grandma is
quite likely to click that Install Adobe Flash Now button. If grandma
can do it, it seems reasonable that everyone else can - and does.

Aren't we back to square 1 with this is circuitous logic. There is no
grief for the user. That's proven in the open market. And users have
proven that this zero-effort action of installing a plugin is
"warranted" for desired applications as far as they are concerned. So
with plugins being installed virtually everywhere, we as developers
are free to write using whatever tools we wish. We can now choose
whatever tools suit our taste, confident that there is virtually no
deployment friction.

I submit that your aversion to using plugins for development and
deployment has nothing to do with an analysis of a potential audience,
but with your own personal preferences. Again, this sort of reasoning
is fine for you as an individual but is completely worthless for
anyone else here trying to understand the ecosystem and trying to make
decisions for themselves.

T