Joe Rinehart wrote: > I think a _great_ idea would be to publish different ways of producing > the same rich application, along with the pros and cons of each: > AJAX, Flex, that open-souce Flex alternative whose name I have just > forgotten, Java applets, etc.
True, but the danger here is that such a study would not include things that some technologies cannot do... such studies are often flawed by assuming the perspective of the weakest link. (How does a JavaScript site auto-update its audience members with older browsers, for instance? When delivering as SWF we frequently handle older audience members gracefully, but many sites billed as "AJaX" still lack even a "here's the browsers we tested" page. Then there's audio, video, and other media types beyond XML....) Me, I'd like to see development and audience costs when comparing projects... might help equalize the asymmetrical feature sets. jd -- John Dowdell . Macromedia Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd Aggregator: http://www.macromedia.com/go/weblogs Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:222053 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
