On 10/24/05, Tim Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To make sure that all browsers can see Flash you have to use > non-standard HTML.
But 98% of all computers already have Flash and it behaves the same on every machine. The HTML code needed to embed Flash is simple, well-understood and supported everywhere (even if it doesn't actually validate - don't get me into that political issue). > True, but the majority of modern browsers correctly implement the > appropriate standards. Bah! Not true. You try visiting some of the current "AJaX"-style sites in a variety of browsers and see what happens! Banana Republic is a great example of a site that either blocks "modern" browsers or fails to render properly in several of them. > Now you've got me on that one, but all AJAX implementations should have > a fall-back mode for those clients that don't support JavaScript anyway Really? So you advocate building *two* versions of your website? One that does non-JavaScript page refresh stuff and one that does "AJaX"-style stuff? And how many sites out there actually do that? Turn JavaScript off for a day and go browsing - many sites are not navigable at all. The reality is that folks who rely heavily on JavaScript do *not* create a fall-back mode and just don't support browsing from devices. As Joe points out, Flash is not only cross-browser but cross-device - something that will become increasingly important in the next few years as more and more devices become connected. > - all code can be source controlled, diff'd and quickly deployed > without any need for building [I like the pretty colours on the > Trac diff tool ;) ] Flex brings that for Flash content: no binary files, just MXML and AS3. > - CF developers can understand JS and get up to speed with it to > allow quick development. Flash authoring is another kettle of > fish entirely; But Flex is extremely natural for CF developers - a tag-based layout language and a JavaScript-style (ECMA standard compliant) scripting language. > - it's much easier for our development team to to make a quick > change to a JS file than to get a Flash developer to make the > change and make the new build, test and deploy; That may be true of Flash authoring but isn't true of Flex (since it likely would be your development team doing it, not some other developer). > - We have more CF developers than Flash/ActionScript developers, > so any development/maintenance etc is easier/quicker with an > AJAX solution. See above. > - debugging an AJAX application is a (relatively) simple task if > you've just one developer. When you throw in a Flash developer > it becomes much more complicated. Yes, you should have unit > testing, but it still happens... Sounds like you're saying debugging is simple when one person writes everything? Doesn't sound like you've dealt with team development much and large, complex apps? Anyways, see above comments. > Of course, these sort of restrictions will be removed once Flex 2 comes > out, but at the moment an AJAX solution is preferable to a full Flex > licence! That depends on how you define "preferable" but I'm glad we're in agreement on the value of Flex 2 in this arena :) -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:4:222058 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
