Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Whitecrest]

You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?

Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?

I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.

and that is significant because....

It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.

No, I show business how, and when to do it.

I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it.

It is designed for it. You just don't like it.

 

[Whitecrest]

Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before.
If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.

Not true all. We sell Flash components that companies plug into their
pages. Several hundred people (many form this forum) downloaded and use
the flash Jukebox I wrote. Many companies use swish with is a flash
compiler (for $49.00 from www.swishit.com) And quite a few don't see an
advantage when using the <embed> tag works great and on as many (or
more) than the standards work around. (It is not a solution, it is a
work around.)

And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
starting.

Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.

Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately.

I always say that. The problem is different people have different
levels of what appropriate means.

Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.

I totally agree (well, you still have a limited view on what flash can
do but that is irrelevant to the topic). But it is not the fault of the
technology that people make shit out if it. People can make a shitty web
site that follow all the standards. So are the standards bad because
someone can abuse it?

That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
"everywhere", "all the browsers"...

You know exactly what it means.

It is not standard

Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.

and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.

nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.

Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4.

I said some of you.

What problems do you imply?

Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
don't know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Whitecrest/:

If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.

Not true all. We sell Flash components [...]
[...]
Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.

Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
component.

And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
could contact Macromedia, too.

Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.

I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages.

nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.

Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
techniques is better? While one could presume standards imply their
design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
just irrational.

Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
don't know exactly what I am talking about.

I can guess many things but I really don't know what you would mean.
I can't think of any reasonable ones, that's why I ask you?

 

[Eric Jarvis]

<in debate with Whitecrest>

You also, for some reason, keep repeating the lie that I claim that
presentation is meaningless. You cannot present any message where I said
any such thing for the obviouls reason that no such message exists.

Anyone who is more honest need only look at other messages in the thread
and see for themselves. Further comment is unwarranted.

once somebody has to start misrepresenting others and starts rewriting the
history of a debate in order to "win" an argument, I think the only
sensible thing we can do is killfile them...there's no point arguing with
Whitecrest any more, it's just going to make the signal to noise ratio on
the group worse...Whitecrest isn't arguing to learn or to establish the
truth, Whitecrest is clearly arguing purely as an ego boost...there's no
point in anyone else participating in that

 

[Eric Jarvis]

Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.

it also allows interactivity within animation...it's fabulous for creating
tutorials and "guided tours"...the problem with that is that it NEEDS
quality animators and they ate few and far between (at least on the web,
because the decent ones can generally make more money by doing TV
animation)

I LIKE Flash...I'd just like to see it used well more than 0.1% of the
time

 

[Whitecrest]

Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
component.

Why? The embed tag works like a charm, and if they search the web to
learn how to use a flash component, they will find the embed example.

And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
could contact Macromedia, too.

Go for it.

I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages.

I do it the same way all the time. I am missing your point.

Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
techniques is better?

Because it is not a work around that requires additional effort to make
it work the same way on the same browsers.

While one could presume standards imply their
design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
just irrational.

As soon as a browser stops supporting the embed tag, I will change. It
will be a touch one to replace 3 lines of code, but I think we will be
able to do it. And I can blame it on the browser for stopping support o
the tag, and charge everyone to update their sites! Money maker all the
way around. (I am being facetious)

 

[Whitecrest]

once somebody has to start misrepresenting others and starts rewriting the
history of a debate in order to "win" an argument, I think the only
sensible thing we can do is killfile them...there's no point arguing with
Whitecrest any more, it's just going to make the signal to noise ratio on
the group worse...Whitecrest isn't arguing to learn or to establish the
truth, Whitecrest is clearly arguing purely as an ego boost...there's no
point in anyone else participating in that

Actually, I am not arguing at all. I am stating an alternate viewpoint,
that you wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend it does not
exist, even though it is the policy and the practice of virtually every
fortune 500 company in the world. (But those experts are to stupid to
know about standards, only the chosen few in this forum can know the
true way...)

If an alternate viewpoint offends you , then by all means kill file me
you won't be the first.

 

[Stan McCann]

Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?

Not quite. But many businesses are trying. I've been using the
internet before "the web"; I remember the first Mosaic coming out and
how "cool" I thought it was. Little did I know then as to how it would
take off.

and that is significant because....

It's not really. Other than a gaming client can do a much better job at
doing what it is designed to do. A broser isn't designed to transfer as
much information needed as fast as it's needed for gaming.

No, I show business how, and when to do it.

Even worse.

It is designed for it. You just don't like it.

If browsers were designed for flash, they wouldn't need a plug in to
display it. And that's right, I don't like the fact that people are
trying to control *my pc.* If you want to save some information, do it
on your machine, not mine. I keep all kinds of information on my pc
that is no one's business but mine. I'm not giving permission for
orthers to read or write files on my pc. Many of these technologies
that you and so many businesses seem to like so much allow that. I
fully intend to do my part in making it unprofitable. I'm not playing
the game of install every plug in and open my pc wide to whoever wants
it. You have one thing right about me. I don't like it.

 

[Whitecrest]

Not quite. But many businesses are trying.

We are in the infancy stage of Web based Television. As broadband
continues to grow, the web will be used more and more for live and on
demand webcasts.

It's not really. Other than a gaming client can do a much better job at
doing what it is designed to do. A broser isn't designed to transfer as
much information needed as fast as it's needed for gaming.

Oh of course there are better mediums for on line gaming, but sites
catering to kids, (nick.com, barbie.com etc...) flash based games are
more than adequate to brand the kids to a product. Remember the games
at such sites are really just a sly way to brand the kids.

Even worse.

Well in your opinion it is worse. The key is not HOW to do it, but WHEN
to do it. There is a right time (nick.com) and a wrong time
(google.com).

You have one thing right about me. I don't like it.

Then don't frequent the sites that use it, and the ones that uses it
that you have to go to, well complain to them about it. When enough
people complain, they (as I) will change.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code.

That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.

 

[Stan McCann]

Then don't frequent the sites that use it, and the ones that uses it
that you have to go to, well complain to them about it. When enough
people complain, they (as I) will change.

That's exactly what I do. I ofen find something that I would like to
purchase but find that I cannot on line due to my privacy settings.
Sometimes I will just leave the site and forget about it, other times I
will email them that they have lost a customer, and still other times I
will call to order making it clear that it is a hassle and I'd rather
use their on line ordering if they would just fix it. It mostly depends
on how badly I want or need the item. Then sometimes, my mood comes
into play; I am a Gemini after all. Unfortunately, as I've said,
there are too many sheep willing to go along with anything not realizing
what affect it has on the industry. I'm afraid that my complaints don't
mean much because of the numerous sheep.

 

[Whitecrest]

That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.

Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?

 

[Whitecrest]

That's exactly what I do.

And I am all for that. If enough people complain about a site, the site
will change. When they do, I will be there to make the needed changes.

 

[Grahammer]

We are in the infancy stage of Web based Television. As broadband
continues to grow, the web will be used more and more for live and on
demand webcasts.

Where have you been? My cable company already offers IP based television.
The web is *NOT* where television is headed. Anyone who thinks that they can
put TV onto a webpage and make it as attractive and reliable as TV is living
in a dreamworld.

Even if technology makes broadcasts available to webpages, it still won't be
used. Other protocols will do it better than HTTP: and trying to mix them
will just cause more headaches than it's worth.

Oh of course there are better mediums for on line gaming, but sites
catering to kids, (nick.com, barbie.com etc...) flash based games are
more than adequate to brand the kids to a product. Remember the games
at such sites are really just a sly way to brand the kids.

And the reason that gaming sites don't use web interfaces is the same reason
that TV won't show up on the web in any major way. Specific clients and
protocols will be created without the need for any HTTP interface.

(PS, just jumped into the thread, not sure if any of that was covered.)

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Whitecrest/:

Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?

AFAIK, <embed> is no part of any HTML specification, so far.

 

[Whitecrest]

Where have you been? My cable company already offers IP based television.
The web is *NOT* where television is headed. Anyone who thinks that they can
put TV onto a webpage and make it as attractive and reliable as TV is living
in a dreamworld.

And the world is flat...

(PS, just jumped into the thread, not sure if any of that was covered.)

Not with the lack of practical knowledge you have shown it hasn't...

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?

Yes. Except there is no current HTML standard that allows its use.

 

[Whitecrest]

/Whitecrest/:

AFAIK, <embed> is no part of any HTML specification, so far.

Yes you are right, but it is supported by all the browsers.

Of course this only proves my point there are things you can not do if
you stick with the standards. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Whitecrest/:

And the world is flat...

And I think you're just too arrogant to accept anything different
from your tiny way of thinking.

 

[Whitecrest]

And I think you're just too arrogant to accept anything different
from your tiny way of thinking.

Not at all. I completely agree with standards and validation and
accessibility for most sites. All I am saying that in addition to all
that, there are a some sites that if is all irrelevant to.

You just disagree with that. Nothing to get your undies in a bunch
over.