Thank you very much Doug, You show how the facts are meaningfull when we take the time to look backward.
Doug McCune a écrit : > > Apologies for how long this email became, but I was reading around on > the trusty wikipedia and wanted to try to clear up some things about > the "success" of the existing web standards. I don't want this to come > off as too much of a rant, but it proably will. > > Let's take a look at the history of CSS > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS>): > > CSS level 1: November 4, 1997 > CSS level 2: May 12, 1998 > CSS level 3: began 1998, still unfinished > > A brief excerpt: > The CSS Working Group began tackling issues that had not been > addressed with CSS level 1, resulting in the creation of CSS level 2 > on November 4, 1997. It was published as a W3C Recommendation on May > 12, 1998. _CSS level 3, which was started in 1998, is still under > development as of 2008_. > > _In 2005 the CSS Working Groups decided to enforce the requirements > for standards more strictly. This meant that already published > standards like CSS 2.1, CSS 3 Selectors and CSS 3 Text were pulled > back from Candidate Recommendation to Working Draft level._ > > And if you really want to have fun look at the half-assed > implementation of CSS across the many browsers: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS) > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28CSS%29>. > It's been 10 years since CSS 2 was written (10 years!) and yet there > still isn't even consistent implementation of that. And CSS 3 > implementation is a joke. > > Maybe HTML is better, let's look at that > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#Version_history_of_the_standard > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#Version_history_of_the_standard>): > HTML 2: 1995 > HTML 3.2 recommendation: January, 1997 > HTML 4 recommendation: December, 1997 > HTML 5 working draft: January 2008 (10 years!) > > Hmm, maybe we can look at ECMAScript, the standard controlling > JavaScript development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript>) > ECMAScript 1: June 1997 > ECMAScript 2: June 1998 > ECMAScript 3: December 1999 > Added E4X to ECMAScript: June 2004 > ECMAScript 4: scrapped > ECMAScript Harmony: in development > > And now, finally, we'll look at the timeline of Flash/ActionScript: > Flash Player 2: 1997 > Flash Player 3: 1998 > Flash Player 4: May, 1999 > Flash Player 5: August 2000 > ActionScript 1: September, 2000 > Flash Player 6: March 2002 > Flash Player 7: September 2003 > ActionScript 2: September 2003 > Flash Player 8: August 2005 > Flah Player 9: June 2006 > ActionScript 3: June 2006 > Flash Player 10: October 2008 > > So for literally the past 10 years the standards bodies haven't been > able to release a single completed specification. That goes for HTML, > CSS, and ECMASCript (the closest would be the draft of the > unimplemented HTML 5 that was released a year ago). The entire > "standards-based web" is running on stuff that was written before the > dot-com bubble burst! Now look at how Flash has progressed since 1999. > That includes the complete evolution of ActionScript all the way from > the very first version to the AS3 (including the recent Vector, etc > enhancements that come with Player 10). The entire evolution of AS3 > occurred after the last ECMAScript spec was written. CSS 3 started > development in 1998 and still isn't finished. In that same time period > we went from Flash Player 3 to 10. > > I'm not holding my breath for anything new coming out of these > standards groups. 10 years and they can't write a specification. The > entire world changes in 10 years. > > Doug > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Guy Morton <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 27/01/2009, at 6:10 PM, Sam Lai wrote: > > > >> I think the issue here is that if Adobe/MS used SVG as a base instead > >> of their proprietary XML dialects, then they won't be able to innovate > >> and implement new features as quickly. > >> > > I disagree, and cite the HTML web browser example again.... > > > >> If they added proprietary extensions to SVG, there'll be a massive > >> backlash as seen with IE and its CSS, JS and HTML extensions. > >> > > IE is criticized because it is rubbish and *doesn't follow the > > standards*. > > > >> If they try to get it into the standard, it will take ages to get it > >> through the committee, and they will lose the competitive advantage of > >> developing that feature in the first place. > >> > >> Unfortunately the standards process just does not keep up with > >> innovation. But personally, I don't think it should - details should > >> be thrashed out, and issues should be resolved in standards, > >> particularly those that could not be foreseen during the initial > >> implementation. > >> > > Yes, that tends to happen and is fine...the point is though that there > > is a working towards a standard, which is not currently what's > > happening with Flash or Silverlight. Both are pretending SVG doesn't > > exist. Flash has some token support for it is the best anyone can say. > > > >> I'm a believer of what Sebastian said - "Competition is what drives > >> technology forward, standards come after the war to clean up the mess, > >> but they don't innovate." > >> > > Again, i disagree, but then maybe I think more highly of humanity than > > you do... :-) > > > >> What would be nice would be a SVG container for Flex/SL, and one that > >> can reach out into the app and allow the app to reach in. > >> > > > > Indeed. I'd be amazed if both MS and Adobe don't have a functioning > > SVG interpreter figured out for their respective plugins, ready to > > jump if that ever becomes necessary (ie, their market share would > > improve if they included it). > > > > Guy > > > >> > >> > >> 2009/1/27 Guy Morton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > >> > Both Adobe and MS could have used SVG as the basis for Flex and > >> Silverlight, > >> > but both prefer to lock people into proprietary approaches. Just > >> because SVG > >> > doesn't do everything Flash/Flex can do is no reason to use all > >> the things > >> > it DOES do (it has styling and scripting support for a start...). > >> > Having used both SVG and Flex, I can tell you the fundamentals are > >> the same. > >> > Sure Flex has a much better component library and the flash player > >> has > >> > better penetration, but most of the things I currently do in Flex > >> are doable > >> > in SVG. > >> > Making the Flex SDK open source is a strategic decision to capture > >> more > >> > market share. It has nothing to do with supporting W3C standards. > >> It is only > >> > about funneling more developers into delivering for the Flash > >> platform in > >> > the face of MS and Silverlight. > >> > I think you are seriously misguided about the role of standards. > >> HTML seems > >> > to have worked pretty well. I don't see MS or Adobe trying to do > >> their own > >> > versions of that (though they may screw up their support for it at > >> times, > >> > yes IE is dreadful)... > >> > Guy > >> > > >> > > >> > On 27/01/2009, at 9:30 AM, Sebastien ARBOGAST wrote: > >> > > >> > Like all W3C standards, SVG is just one tiny little piece of the > >> puzzle. The > >> > Flash platform or silverlight offer much more than that of course. > >> Component > >> > libraries, styling, scripting support, system integration, > >> remoting support, > >> > IDEs, and all the accessories that, like it or not, only a big > >> company can > >> > produce. > >> > > >> > Competition is what drives technology forward, standards come > >> after the war > >> > to clean up the mess, but they don't innovate. > >> > With the iPhone being so closed, at least Android and Palm have a > >> big card > >> > to play on openness to compete. > >> > But wishing for one silver bullet technology is not a dream, it is > >> not even > >> > a utopia, it's like wishing for hell on earth. > >> > Oh, and by the way, the Flex SDK is totally Open Source, but this > >> has > >> > already been repeated thousands of times so I guess you know. > >> > Sébastien Arbogast > >> > > >> > http://sebastien-arbogast.com <http://sebastien-arbogast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > 2009/1/26 Guy Morton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >> > >> >> Mm..yes, but then again Apple is supporting SVG on the > >> iPhone...Adobe > >> >> hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with its support for SVG. > >> Of course > >> >> since they bought Macromedia they no longer have any strategic > >> use for it. > >> >> And now we have Silverlight from MS we have THREE technologies > >> that are > >> >> essentially the same - two proprietory and one a W3C standard. > >> >> > >> >> Sigh. It's the usual mess we get when corporations exercise their > >> >> competitive impulses. > >> >> Wouldn't it have been nice to have an open vector animation > >> standard (SVG) > >> >> that would play in a commonly deployed runtime (Flash)? Then we > >> could all > >> >> develop once and have native playback in browsers that support > >> SVG, player > >> >> support for those that don't and we'd be able to target the iPhone. > >> >> That of course will never happen. :-) > >> >> Guy > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 27/01/2009, at 12:23 AM, Wally Kolcz wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Could not have put it any better myself. > >> >> > >> >> ________________________________ > >> >> From: "Paul Andrews" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:07 AM > >> >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex. AIR and IPhone > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> LOL, yes - the iphone only supports two gestures for flex, flash > >> and air > >> >> and they involve the use of one or two fingers.. > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From:Sebastien ARBOGAST > >> >> To:[email protected] > <mailto:to%[email protected]> > >> >> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:28 AM > >> >> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex. AIR and IPhone > >> >> You can start by a prayer, because the Flash runtime is not > >> available on > >> >> the iPhone in any form, including AIR. > >> >> And it will probably never be because of commercial and strategic > >> reasons: > >> >> the day people can deploy Flex applications to the iPhone, the > >> App Store is > >> >> as good as dead... sort of. > >> >> Sébastien Arbogast > >> >> > >> >> http://sebastien-arbogast.com <http://sebastien-arbogast.com> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2009/1/26 thelordsince1984 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> i would create an air application and deploy it into iphone > >> >>> environment and allow touchscreen gestures. > >> >>> How can i start? > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks a lot > >> >>> > >> >>> Regards > >> >>> > >> >>> Lorenzo > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > -- > > Flexcoders Mailing List > > FAQ: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt> > > Alternative FAQ location: > https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847 > > <https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847> > > Search Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo > <http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo>! > Groups Links > > > > > > (Yahoo! ID required) > > > > mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > > >
