Google isn't the one missing the point

[ctwise]

Google wants very much for everything to move to HTML. They don't
want Flash. They don't want Silverlight. They don't want JavaFX.
All of those technologies move us away from discoverable data and all
of the benefits of simple HTML.

HTML5 and Chrome are an attempt to make Flash and plug-ins pointless.

[Jess Holle]

Agreed.

Though "discoverable data" is of near infinite benefit to Google and far more limited value to those trying to write an application vs. those primarily focused on presenting content.  Yes, that's a blurry distinction, but there are clear extremes here -- ThinkFree on the one hand vs. Wikipedia on the other.  Google's not evil here, but clearly what's best for them isn't necessarily best for everyone (not even everyone but their competitors).

--
Jess Holle

[Casper Bang]

Then again, GWT isn't exactly addressable/discoverable. In general I
like Google for embracing the web, often it seems like everyone runs
away from it and invents complex and artificial layers that we then
can't use from all our devices (think iPhone/Android). I suppose
applets were the worst of these layers. The best was XUL in my
opinion.

/Casper

On 30 Jun., 01:46, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Though "discoverable data" is of near infinite benefit to Google and

> /far/ more limited value to those trying to write an /application/ vs.

[Bill Robertson]

GWT is absolutely not addressable/discoverable. Google can't search
your GWT site unless you add something like an atom feed and design
the GWT pages to react according when somebody hits a deep (yet fake)
link into your site.

The same strategy will work for Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX or whatever
system you use to add client-side pizazz to your site.

[Michael Neale]

Not sure if that is right - "discoverable data" is more a function of
what the app does, more so then how it is built. Google index flash
"web sites" quite heavily, and in flash you can make things
"dicoverable" as well.

Also, look at GMail, Wave etc - how are they "discoverable"

Don't confuse web sites (all about content/nouns) with web apps (all
about the actions/verbs) - latter is what is up for debate really.
Even the former built in flash if you want is indexable.

[Casper Bang]

True, there's a difference between wide-spectred content websites
(typically the Internet) and applications (typically intranets). I
would distinguish discoverable from addressable (think REST) in what
it allows, particular in relation to a semantic web and a full fledged
hypermedia system. Notice for instance, as you click on a message in
GMail, how you navigate to a unique item under your inbox with the
back button working as an undo. Could that be done with Silverlight,
Flash and JavaFX?

/Casper

[Alexey Zinger]

As has been pointed out, major search indexes inspect Flash content.  Surely initialization DOM manipulation via Javascript is indexed as well.  GWT also encourages REST'ful style of building web apps.  The days of having express everything you needed indexed in HTML alone are gone.

 

Alexey

---

From: Casper Bang <caspe...@gmail.com>
To: The Java Posse <java...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:17:52 PM
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Google isn't the one missing the point

[ad]

+1

This rant seemed odd, especially bringing up flex so much. Does
anybody honestly believe google would consider using flex for the wave
ui?! Flash support is still bad in unix. Flex has its place,
especially in the business app world, but is disliked by many and the
interfaces are often clumsy or even inaccessible to some. JavaFx just
isn't open or mature yet, and obviously Silverlight is not an option.
Google has been all about speeding up javascript and making the
browser the app platform. Open standards/Chrome/javascript/html is
decidedly the google client platform of choice.

Adam

[Michael Neale]

Practically speaking, I can see the benefits of flex and flash - I
have used some great apps in them, and adobe do some really cool
stuff, and are very friendly to developers. But the reason flash works
as well as it does compared to browsers is largely due to it being
just 1 runtime vendor to target (and its still not open source) - it
would be more interesting to more folks of they would completely open
up the runtime - certainly would level the playing field a bit. As it
stands now, adobe don't seem at all open to that, and that worries me
(there is gnash of course, but then you have the issue just the same
as the browsers - you get different behaviors in different runtime
implementations).

[Dick Wall]

Hi Ad

I brought up flash because of all of the options discussed, it is the
most widely disseminated in a usable form (much higher penetration
than HTML 5 considering IE 6 and 7 don't have support for it yet, nor
does Firefox 3). I do agree that HTML 5 availability will grow as
browsers move forward, but I also have my issues with the promise of
GWT - for example, while I have been using the firefox 3.5 beta for
some time as my primary browser, it has not been supported by GWT. I
just went to the GWT site to look at the list of supported browsers
and I can't seem to find it right now (can anyone point me to it - I
like to have my facts straight).

Without strong support and clear details on supported browsers, and
timetables for their support, I would not want to commit a project to
using GWT when it might result in people not being able to use my
site.

I am playing devils advocate a little. Open standards are, of course,
good. I think there are some valid reasons to question the HTML 5/
browser only approach though - if only to get a discussion going. I
don't believe Google will develop a flash version of wave, even though
they do use flash heavily for other services (analytics, finance,
youtube, etc.). However it is noteworthy that the selling point of
wave seems to be "look at what we can do in the browser!" rather than
"look at what we can do!". I also fully expect to see flash or JavaFX
wave clients quickly pass the browser version in terms of pizazz and
functionality, although I think the browser version will rule for
market share.

I think we should not be to caught up in what we can do in the browser
though as the be-all and end-all of development. I think a future
solely consisting of web applications is a limited one indeed.

Several people have addressed the question of accessibility already,
but I will point out that a pure javascript application is no more
inherently accessible than a flex one - I know this was a big focus of
T.V. Raman when I worked at Google - how to make GWT and JavaScript
behave nicely for the visually impaired and other accessibility
concerns.

Anyway - I believe it made for a good discussion, which was the point
after all. I think the next few years are going to be interesting.

Dick

[Michael Neale]

note that Wave doesn't require HTML5 at all, not sure where that came
from?

[Michael Neale]

GWT works fine with Firefox3.5, just tried it. I think early betas of
FF tend to get pushed hard by complex ajax apps, which GWT certainly
generates.

GWT tends to compile different versions for the families of browsers
it supports.

On Jun 30, 1:50 pm, Dick Wall <dickw...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ad]

hmm, all I know is from the wave demo watching google i/o videos, but
am almost sure I heard some piece of it at least required HTML5. I
think they only used safari and firefox for this reason.

Adam

[Ben Schulz]

Are you thinking of the drag and drop which is currently NOT supported
by HTML5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ#t=16m16s

It does not matter either way, because by the time wave is done, all
vendors will have an HTML5-ready version. I'm pretty sure that 95% of
the people will upgrade when they get a whiff -- or spume if you will
-- of wave (assuming it will fulfill all my wild fantasies.. ;).

With kind regards
Ben

[ad]

Ben,

Nice recall. Yup, that is exactly what I was completely incorrectly
thinking of.

Adam

[Michael Neale]

>
> I think we should not be to caught up in what we can do in the browser
> though as the be-all and end-all of development. I think a future
> solely consisting of web applications is a limited one indeed.
>

I agree, however I don't see the problem with people pushing a given
platform (the browser) as far as it will go - especially as
competently and excellently as google has done (by pushing standards
and openness, as opposed to anti-competitive practices).

Its certainly not the only client, but it is for most people the best
one we have today.

[Bill Robertson]

"Notice for instance, as you click on a message in
GMail, how you navigate to a unique item under your inbox with the
back button working as an undo. Could that be done with Silverlight,
Flash and JavaFX? "

Are asking about tying the browser back button to the Flash,
Silverlight, JavaFX application?

[Casper Bang]

Yes, controlling/utilizing the browser history (via the history class)
to conform to the user experience expected by most - when/if deemed
appropriate by the developer.

/Casper

[Michael Neale]

I think flash and silverlight could probably do that as well (I know
flash can at least).

[Christian Catchpole]

Everyone has been dancing around how to hack "richness" into the
browser, but Java (or should I say, the JVM) could have become a
standard like javascript, 10 years ago, if Sun had done one thing
differently. They should have made Java back the "web app" (much like
javascript backs a page) rather than making applets a page component.
Then if they had made a nice API into the DOM so that people could
actually use it. You could have client side apps that act like a
server, but manipulate the DOM. Rebuilding pages without reload.
And it would survive page navigation and reload as long as you don't
navigate away from the base http://server/path/ perhaps even allow
rendering of images and canvases without URL hookbacks.

I guess it all came down to the mechanics of browser plug ins, but if
they had been proactive back then, things could have been very
different.

Easy to say in hind sight I guess.. The whole DOM rendering model has
come a long way since then. And even today JVMs can be too heavy
weight for some circumstances (reason again to have modularized it and
made it leaner a long time ago).

I really think the solution is to allow java to function as javascript
is being used. The applet "canvas" suffers from the same problem AWT/
Swing does. It ignores the environment it's in says 'just render what
you want'. Swing should always have been like SWT.

[Mohamed Bana]

2009/6/30 ad <adam.d...@gmail.com>

+1

This rant seemed odd, especially bringing up flex so much. Does
anybody honestly believe google would consider using flex for the wave
ui?! Flash support is still bad in unix.

i'm glad you brought that up, indeed it isn't up to par with the windows ver., the 100% usage bug is also highly annoying.  also, one of the major benefits of going native, well for me at least, is using the native font rendering, i like being able to customise the hint settings for a particular font ... how flash offer this?  i believe Mono might as they use FreeType, but i could be wrong.