[snotnose]

this article goes into detail about how html's time is over. are you moving on? what do you think?

[redJag]

I think HTML will be around for a very long time. Mostly because the large majority of users don't have the bandwidth for something more and advanced. I think Flash is a cool solution, but like the article said: the design environment is very linearly oriented. Who knows what will emerge as the new standard. I'm sticking with HTML/PHP/CSS etc. for now, although I am trying to scrape up enough funds for Flash MX (educational version is only $100, but can't use for commercial purposes, normal version is $500......!!)

[bluedog]

HTML will be here for some time. I see XML data becoming more important with CSS defining the look of things in the future of the 'web' services. It will no longer be a web browser, but instead many devices will view the data.

Its more like a phone that can view the data of a website (like they show for sport scores in the TV commercials). Soon, I envision site designers looking to optimize their sites for any device and accomodate what it displays to the requestor by what it is capable of viewing.

[Quagmire]

The simplicity of (X)HTML will make sure it sticks around for a while. Also, the fact that anyone with a text editor and FTP program can make a site as well as anyone else doesn't hurt.

[Millennium]

I think the author of this has grossly misunderstood the fundamental nature of the Web, that's what I think.

The Web is about the accessible interchange of data, and applications to work with that data. Because of this, the text-based Web (with embeddable elements of other media) we know has emerged. This has the advantage of being able to be delivered in a wide variety of formats, even though (thanks largely to Microsoft and previous incarnations of Netscape) we have been stuck in one limited paradigm for the most part. None of the so-called alternatives mentioned in this article are anywhere near that flexible. The future is not in multimedia, but in accessible media. And thus far, HTML and XML reign supreme in that.

And I love his little complaint about how Flash is oriented towards animations: of course it is. That's what it's for.

[redJag]

I understand what you're saying about Flash. Yes, it was originally for interactive animations. With the new Flash MX, though, it is taking more steps towards a web solution. The benefit of flash is that it eliminates cross-platform, cross-browser problems, so long as you have the plug-in and a browser that can use that plug-in. I'm not saying that its a replacement for HTML -- it's not. However, it is no longer just for animations.

[york28]

Flash is a program, and it is still very based around a linear, vector-animation schema. And the files it creates do solve some of the problems of platform compatibility.

But you don't view Flash files on thet internet, you view Shockwave files. And Shockwave files can be created by other programs as well. Adobe has one, I haven't used it myself, but I've heard that it is gaining some ground on Flash.

As for th Web, html will be around for a long, long time. I think that what will happen in the future is that sites will have different editions, the way many do now, one for mobile devices, one for web browsers. I have a hard time believeing that most site developers will willingly surrender control of lay-out to the user.

Eventually we will probably see Sherlock and Watson type programs grow to become much more capable, but I think that it will be a while.

Until some other standard becomes easier to use for a large number of people, and more importantly, free, then maybe the standard will change. Until then, (x)html it is.

[redJag]

Originally posted by york28:
But you don't view Flash files on thet internet, you view Shockwave files. And Shockwave files can be created by other programs as well. Adobe has one, I haven't used it myself, but I've heard that it is gaining some ground on Flash.

In the beginning, their was shockwave. Shockwave was mainly for developing interactive software to go with CDs and the like. Along came flash, a program similar to shockwave but built for deployment onto the web. Both types of files can be viewed on the web with the correct plug-in, but flash is MUCH MUCH more prominent on the web (since that's what it is made for..).

In summary, I believe you're either mistaken or have switched the two around. Flash IS the web format. Shockwave IS the original, came out before the internet was what it is today.

[eggman]

In summary, I believe you're either mistaken or have switched the two around. Flash IS the web format. Shockwave IS the original, came out before the internet was what it is today.

Well... close, but no cigar. I was a Macromedia engineer at the time that Shockwave came out and I can understand the confusion around this.

First there was Director. Director was (and is) a multimedia authoring application used for interactive/enhanced CDs, games, kiosks... software demos; anything involving scripted animation combined with user interaction.

Director predated the emergence of the web by a stretch, but with the emergence of the web, there was an opportunity for delivering similar content online and so Shockwave was born: Shockwave files were authored in Director for web delivery, supported by a browser plug-in for playback.

Well, with all the enthusiasm around the web at this time Macromedia got a little too brand-happy. The edict came down from management that *all* Macromedia's applications should create web-based content... so you had "Shockwave for FreeHand" which displayed vector illustrations in the browser and "Shockwave for xRes" which could zoom and pan around very high-resolution bitmap files.

And when Macromedia acquired FutureSplash, which they rebranded as Flash, they referred to the player as "Shockwave for Flash".

Eventually the confusing notion of "Shockwave for this" and "Shockwave for that" mercifully went away, and Shockwave became the designation for web playback of content authored in Director... which has largely been eclipsed by Flash - which had been designed for web content authoring pretty much from the outset.

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by snotnose:
this article goes into detail about how html's time is over. are you moving on? what do you think?

Of course there are many reasons why folk use the web and many uses for it. And what follows is really just an exposition of a personal preference and a reason for that pref.

I'd could even look forward to Flash becoming more versatile. However, one reason why I use the web so much, as opposed to absorbing piped TV content is mainly to have more control over my choices -- and because I can interact with it to a much greater degree than TV. Flash so often 'feels' to me like a step back in the direction of TV / piped content; a little less democratic.

The degree to which more proprietary solutions could exert influence over the nature of its content worries me a little. Yes, every medium exerts some influence over it's content including HTML, but at least HTML is a text based solution that's very close in nature to the one of the fundamental ways we communicate.

I disagree also with the premise that we are ( and it seems implied 'always' ) "demanding more and more richness". While I'm sure this is a valuable pursuit and will bring us more technology like Quicktime for example. Better faster more holographic fun. I also find that au contraire some of the time at least, I am demanding more and more truth, but finding it more and more obscured, gussied-up, and harder than ever to find.

I'm a lowly amateur in this field, but I know what I want, and tend to vote with my trackpad when subjected to too much piped or imposed content.

-----

Now I'll wreck my own thought by remembering reading that centuries ago, folk who could 'merely read' were often regarded in silent awe -- (presumably by the masses who may have relied on and have been swayed by more visual and aural forms of communication.) The written word wasn't always common coin, and remains a double-edged sword in the hands of the unscrupulous [read the small print and the disclaimer -- or the body language].

Well the written word, perhaps it gave us the opportunity to document learning and accelerate education, and advance technology for better and worse, but neither am I in a hurry to give up such a democratic use of word [text and simple markup language] to any proprietary solution that would, no matter how well intentioned, attempt to "define a new standard" for this internet medium that would take authorship out of the hands of users of a simple and ubiquitous tool, and place it in the hands of a few. No matter that it may have started out that way, for a short while, but I think we're on to something here with this global village widely usable thing that could ultimately bring us closer together in understanding, at a time when physical borders are in a kind of crisis.

[phidauex]

Most sites have no need of flash.. Why should I require my users to use one of the platforms that is supported by flash players (not all of them, remember), use a browser with a flash plugin (again, not all of them), and sit there waiting for my animations to finish before they can read the text they came there to get. In that respect, simple markup is far far superior.

I think the way the web is going to go is to a greater division of content and display. Websites I design are already starting to do this. Instead of having html files that are my webpage's content and style, the content lives in databases, and php and perl handle the display using stylesheets. My webpage looks great on every browser (including lynx), because I flex to each browser's needs. It doesn't look the same on every browser (a poor goal to have), but it looks good, and usable. I also have RDF and XML feeds. News aggregators can grab content right off my site. People at home can read it in the news program of their choice. I can dynamically generate versions for mobile devices, remove the navigation tags when someone prints the page, etc, all with only one source of content.

There is no be-all solution to web display, and that goes for flash too. It has its little place on the web, but there will always be people who don't want it, don't need it, or can't use it.

Also, do I have to mention the fact that incoporating proprietary technology into the web is a BAD idea? Remember what happened with GIF? and MP3s? Do you really want to be relying on Flash the day that macromedia decides to stop developing for your platform? Or decides to not release a player for your target OS? Or decides to impose horrendous licencing requirements? I don't plan on putting my work into the hands of a corporation. I don't think flash will be a viable major solution until open source solutions exist for both Flash authoring AND flash playback. Until that point, people are just laying back and waiting to get their throat slit by a big company again.

Peace,
sam

[bluedog]

Oh, right. HTML is dying. And Apple computer was supposed to be out of business so... like 'last century.'

The infrastructure is there. Its function and purpose still is relavant. Its here to stay for some time.