REBOL, Flash and Browsers
[1/15] from: sunandadh::aol::com at: 11-Mar-2003 4:29
Roland:
[was Re: earth demo]
> Ah, don't you think the better part of most Flash intros is the "skip
> intro" button?
Flash is a much richer language/environment than you'd ever imagine if you've
just seen it being used to generate annoying demos. It's a fully-featured
programming language that is one of the main contenders for future
application delivery -- that's any form of application, not just annoying
graphics.
[snip]
> What really bugs me is that REBOL does not integrate into browsers,
> though.
Given that, increasingly, the browser *is* the platform these days, not
integrating into a browser is a serious limiting factor into REBOL's reach.
I seem to remember that there was an IE-only REBOL plug-in at one point. So
it is possible; it just hasn't been carried through all the way.
Sunanda.
[2/15] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 11-Mar-2003 5:47
Hi, Sunanda, et al,
[SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
> Given that, increasingly, the browser *is* the platform these days,
> not integrating into a browser is a serious limiting factor into
> REBOL's reach.
>
Not if Microsoft has their way. Latest rumor I'm hearing is that:
- there's increasing pressure on sales/pricing of w'dows (t'm) from
Linux in public, private sectors, and
- one of the biggest topics of complaint by users of Big Packages
(e.g. SAP) is the user interface.
Consequently, the next version of Office (tm) (with rebranded
Office:Word (tm), Office:Excel (tm), etc. (tm)) will
- have XML backends, and
- will be able to serve as the user interface to corporate software.
IOW, (per this rumor) usoft's pitch is "The browser is dead, and
Office (tm) is the platform!"
Translated another way, increasing pressure on (and urgent need to
integrate with) the Little Guys.
-jn-
--
Polonius: ... What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet: Words, words, words.
_Hamlet_, Act II, Scene 2
[3/15] from: carl:cybercraft at: 12-Mar-2003 0:58
On 11-Mar-03, [SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
> Given that, increasingly, the browser *is* the platform these days,
> not integrating into a browser is a serious limiting factor into
> REBOL's reach.
We could turn things on their heads and create a simple web-browser in
REBOL that uses 'browse to display webpages it can't display, but
which could do anything REBOLish we like on those pages it can
display.
--
Carl Read
[4/15] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Mar-2003 13:29
Carl Read wrote:
>On 11-Mar-03, [SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
>>Given that, increasingly, the browser *is* the platform these days,
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>which could do anything REBOLish we like on those pages it can
>display.
I think that is not the way - we need deployment - each single desktop
has browser ... thru browser, let's get users to Rebol ;-)
-pekr-
[5/15] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Mar-2003 14:00
Joel Neely wrote:
>Hi, Sunanda, et al,
>[SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
>- one of the biggest topics of complaint by users of Big Packages
> (e.g. SAP) is the user interface.
Why? We have SAP here. Typical R3 has its own interface, maybe R3
mySAP.com version uses browser. SAP package is so huge, that is is
really scary. But even for "old" R3, there is plenty of stuff to
integrate with Word, Excel, etc. etc. I can assure you though, that
Native SAP client does not provide you with any additional comfort to
web browser solution. It is simply SAP architecture which forbids it -
no active key-press checking, if you e.g. press tab, it is a typical
button and request goes to server - all is validated on server side. So
- I would like to know what was user's complaint about in regards to R3?
Just curious :-)
>Consequently, the next version of Office (tm) (with rebranded
>Office:Word (tm), Office:Excel (tm), etc. (tm)) will
>
>- have XML backends, and
>- will be able to serve as the user interface to corporate software.
>
Yes, it can be true, as "corporate sw" is thin (dumb) client, which
takes 300 MB of your HD anyway :-) I assume no processing will be
involved on client's side ....
>IOW, (per this rumor) usoft's pitch is "The browser is dead, and
>Office (tm) is the platform!"
>
>Translated another way, increasing pressure on (and urgent need to
>integrate with) the Little Guys.
>
we will see - I have good feeling more and more users are using Mozilla
(Gecko based browsers). Web will not so easily go away, it can't imo ...
at least, not yet.
Interesting perspectives anyway .... I wonder what requirements next
wave of PDAs + cell-phones brings to table. That is not 95% of MS
appliances, but also other OSes ...
-pekr-
[6/15] from: sunandadh:aol at: 11-Mar-2003 10:16
Joel:
> Not if Microsoft has their way. Latest rumor I'm hearing is that:
[snip]
> IOW, (per this rumor) usoft's pitch is "The browser is dead, and
> Office (tm) is the platform!"
If Office becomes a separate platform for application delivery, then RT will
have to think very hard about migrating to that platform too.
The REBOL "mission statement" reads, in part:
REBOL connects people, not just computers....Our company provides an
operating system independent distributed collaborative platform that empowers
the next generation of Internet communications.
http://www.rebol.com/mission.html
If people are talking Office-to-Office (Or Office-to-browser, or
Office-to-desktop legacy) then REBOL will have to deploy inside Office too.
Petr:
> So - I would like to know what was user's complaint about in regards
> to R3? Just curious :-)
I've done some SAP work too -- mainly trying to migrate some mega-legacy
applications from mainframes to SAP so they could be web deployed. In the
end, we gave up with SAP and went direct. Someone (I forget who) once said
that SAP has only two faults: "it's too expensive and it doesn't work". That
fitted my experience.
SAP attempts to be a complete platform in perhaps the way that Joel reports
Office wants to be. I suspect the failures will be similar.
I've been working on the Library project. We've had to write the application
twice. Once as web-server CGIs (you'll see that at www.rebol.org) and once as
a stand-alone REBOL application (soon to be released, I hope). There is a lot
of common code between the two (much of the indexing and search function is
common; and 'layouts are massaged into html) but it is still two separate
applications.
That's not nearly as bad as if we then had to port the REBOL application to
39 different operating environments, but it does point up a flaw in REBOL's
mission to be a "distributed collaborative platform".
Sunanda.
[7/15] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Mar-2003 17:28
[SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
>I've been working on the Library project. We've had to write the application
>twice. Once as web-server CGIs (you'll see that at www.rebol.org) and once as
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
>39 different operating environments, but it does point up a flaw in REBOL's
>mission to be a "distributed collaborative platform".
I am afraid now I don't understand? What does have Rebol distributed
collaborative platform have in common with the need to deploy two
philosophically different environments? Because - knowing IOS, we know
Rebol is "distributed collaborative platform" and the worst thing imo is
- to mix two worlds into one. I prefer clean IOS aproach and html (or
other formats) as an output device. But I may miss the point here. But
you may be correct if you meant that:
1) rebol cross platform support may be a bit shaky ... ("old" platforms
left behind - AmigaOS, BeOS, some of them not providing business
oportunity probably - QNX, Symbian, while the latter may be important in
regards to mobile devices ..)
2) deployment of rebol is a bit difficult - non /Pro users completly
left out - no shell, no libraries ... /Command - no ActiveX, COM etc.,
overall - no CLI for .NET, browser or other environmental (OS) hooks?
etc etc. Note that I am not flaming here, just trying to think loudly -
e.g. - is rebol a java competitor or would it be better to have
rebol-for-java? Wouldn't it take Rebol PLATFORM onto devices, which
support java but have no direct rebol port?
3) critical mass adoption - if not used by many, it is difficult to
provide rebol-only solution (e.g. forgetting html interface to library
page) If we had at least browser plug-in, separate app could be started ...
The question is - what is the most important of all of our thousand
wishes? Because - there may be also other way ... to make rebol better
and better - I mean mainly thru kernels advancements developments,
allowing Rebol to be used for kind of projects we have to better forget
about nowadays ...
cheers,
-pekr-
[8/15] from: carl:cybercraft at: 12-Mar-2003 9:06
On 12-Mar-03, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Carl Read wrote:
>> We could turn things on their heads and create a simple web-browser
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> I think that is not the way - we need deployment - each single
> desktop has browser ... thru browser, let's get users to Rebol ;-)
There doesn't have to be only one way, and the above suggestion
doesn't require us to persuade RT to do it - as long as 'browse works
on all REBOL/Views. And if nothing else, a half-way usable
web-browser would be a good demo of what REBOL's capable off. (I'm
now wondering just how big (small) such a script would need to be...)
--
Carl Read
[9/15] from: carl:cybercraft at: 12-Mar-2003 9:27
On 12-Mar-03, [SunandaDH--aol--com] wrote:
> Someone
> (I forget who) once said that SAP has only two faults: "it's too
> expensive and it doesn't work".
Is this the SAP so promently displayed on the spinniaker of Team New
Zealand's America's Cup yacht? The one that just lost the Cup 5-0 to
the land-locked Swizz team and failed to finish in two out of the five
races? ;-)
--
Carl Read
[10/15] from: sunandadh:aol at: 11-Mar-2003 16:23
Carl:
> Is this the SAP so promently displayed on the spinniaker of Team New
> Zealand's America's Cup yacht? The one that just lost the Cup 5-0 to
> the land-locked Swizz team and failed to finish in two out of the five
> races? ;-)
The very same! I rest my case.
Sunanda.
[11/15] from: sunandadh:aol at: 11-Mar-2003 16:21
Petr:
> I am afraid now I don't understand? What does have Rebol distributed
> collaborative platform have in common with the need to deploy two
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> other formats) as an output device. But I may miss the point here. But
> you may be correct if you meant that:
I think we're taking different meanings for "distributed collaborative
platform", You, I think, are seeing that as the IOS product. I'm reading it
as all REBOL products, including the language itself.
I'll claim that the REBOL website supports my view:
<<[...]REBOL was designed to solve one of the fundamental problems in
computing: the exchange and interpretation of information between distributed
computer systems. REBOL accomplishes this through the concept of relative
expressions.[...] For example, REBOL can not only create a graphical user
interface in one line of code, but it can also send that line as data to be
processed and displayed on other Internet computer systems around the
world....REBOL's consistent architecture provides powerful range of
capabilities, from its small kernel interpreter (called REBOL/Core) up to an
entire Internet Operating System (called REBOL/IOS)>>
http://www.rebol.com/rebol-intro.html
The issue that interests me is what is a platform these days. There is a
generation growing up for whom the browser is *the* major platform -- they
can buy books, view porn. check airline schedules, listen to music, message
to friends, steal essays for homework, etc, etc, solely using applications
that run on their browser.
And they can use those same applications in exactly the same way on the Linux
box at home, on the PC box at work, on the friend's MAC, the
whatever-machine at the mall, and (in many cases) the PDA on the bus.
Inside-browser is a major platform for today's and tomorrow's applications.
Flash is aiming to be language for application deployment inside browsers. If
that happens -- and yes Cyphre, I know Flash is pretty clunky in many ways:
I'm no fan of it -- but if it happens, it'll be the language that is used to
display data "on other Internet computer systems around the world" rather
than REBOL.
And us old-timers will be stuck telling them young'uns about how in the old
days you had to install an operating-system specific package ("what's an
operating system, granddad?"), rather than just clicking "download plug-in,"
to add functionality to an application.
> 2) deployment of rebol is a bit difficult
I'm with you all the way on the rest of your post. Those are key issues that
hinder the spread of REBOL.
Of course, if Microsoft borgize Flash into Visual Office:Flash XP++.Net then
REBOL has a fighting chance,
Sunanda.
[12/15] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Mar-2003 22:50
Carl Read wrote:
>On 12-Mar-03, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
>>Carl Read wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 15>>
>web-browser would be a good demo of what REBOL's capable off. (I'm
>now wondering just how big (small) such a script would need to be...)
That is exactly that - how far do you want to go? I am afraid, looking
at W3C's site, that something is wrong with so called "standards" :-)
Lot's of stuff which can be actually combined onto page to make certain
functionality working, so what to implement and what to obey and still
have usable webpage navigation? I think it could become tricky. OTOH -
how you will support such single thing as multiple color text per face?
(although maybe there could be some other solution)
Simply put - I think (and you don't need to share my opinion), that any
partial result will be seen as failure to correct browser functionality.
I would really like to see ability to have link on my website, which
would bring in rebol player and run the package ... I am not sure it is
doable without RT's assistance ... do you think it is?
-pekr-
[13/15] from: carl:cybercraft at: 12-Mar-2003 13:10
On 12-Mar-03, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Carl Read wrote:
>> There doesn't have to be only one way, and the above suggestion
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>> be...)
> That is exactly that - how far do you want to go?
A version 4 browser, (say of the functionality of an Amiga browser),
would be a good starting point. They're still okay for basic
surfing, just not all the bells & whistles that are mostly provided
by plugins.
> I am afraid,
> looking at W3C's site, that something is wrong with so called
> "standards" :-) Lot's of stuff which can be actually combined onto
> page to make certain functionality working, so what to implement and
> what to obey and still have usable webpage navigation? I think it
> could become tricky.
No doubt about that...
> OTOH - how you will support such single thing
> as multiple color text per face?
It'd have to be done with panes within faces - a pane per change of
text style.
> (although maybe there could be some other solution)
Can't think of any...
> Simply put - I think (and you don't need to share my opinion), that
> any partial result will be seen as failure to correct browser
> functionality.
You may be right. Someone, sometime, has to attempt a browser in
REBOL though - just to see how good (or bad) one would be.
> I would really like to see ability to have link on my
> website, which would bring in rebol player and run the package ... I
> am not sure it is doable without RT's assistance ... do you think it
> is?
No. Well, I don't know, but I'm assuming it isn't. And don't forget,
they had it working in IE, but then something changed in IE and it
didn't work any more. (If I remember correctly.) RT have found that
supporting a host of platforms is more work than they can afford at
the moment. Given there's usually about three popular browsers on
most platforms, this could also prove to be a lot of work to weep up
with.
Another alternative is to invent our own, REBOL-friendly markup
dialect and write browsers for that. (Maybe it could be a subset of
HTML so standard browsers could surf it too.) We'd have a proper Reb
to surf then. Plugins to standard browsers would certainly be the
ideal if they could be made to work without problems. But if they're
starting to be perceived as platforms in their own right, (never mind
Office!;), doesn't that put them on the same level as REBOL? ie, as
the competition?
--
Carl Read
[14/15] from: bry:itnisk at: 12-Mar-2003 10:07
>> There doesn't have to be only one way, and the above suggestion
>> doesn't require us to persuade RT to do it - as long as 'browse
>> works on all REBOL/Views. And if nothing else, a half-way usable
>> web-browser would be a good demo of what REBOL's capable off. (I'm
>> now wondering just how big (small) such a script would need to
>> be...)
As an aside on this and the subject of office integration, some months
ago I was talking about having an app(asynchronous pluggable protocol)
implementation with Windows. Most windows protocols are in fact passed
as apps, an app is passed via the command line to an exe, in the example
I gave the exe would be rebol.exe with it's own command line to load a
script for interpreting the arguments passed to it. This works fine,
although I have absolutely no idea what such a protocol should do. The
benefit is of course that this protocol can then be executed from any
windows object that can pass a protocol, this includes: any browser,
Microsoft office documents, Open Office documents, explorer web views as
represented by a .htt(in windows 98 and up the appearance of a folder is
actually determined by a specialized type of html document called a
.htt, you'll find a number of these in the web folder under your system
folder, open them in a text editor you'll see what I mean), shortcuts,
and windows dialogue boxes accessible via the context menu.
>A version 4 browser, (say of the functionality of an Amiga browser),
>would be a good starting point. They're still okay for basic
>surfing, just not all the bells & whistles that are mostly provided
>by plugins.
If there was this then I suppose there would be the possibility of a
rebol plugin architecture?
> I am afraid,
> looking at W3C's site, that something is wrong with so called
> "standards" :-) Lot's of stuff which can be actually combined onto
> page to make certain functionality working, so what to implement and
> what to obey and still have usable webpage navigation? I think it
> could become tricky.
There's lots wrong with W3C standards, this is the area in which I have
some expertise.
Since most W3C stuff is xml based now the solution is to have a coherent
xml strategy, I think RT has voiced the attitude that Rebol is also data
and this seems to have led it to look down on xml. Rebol may be data but
it is not the data format that the rest of the world seems intent on
supporting.
>> I would really like to see ability to have link on my
>> website, which would bring in rebol player and run the package ... I
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>they had it working in IE, but then something changed in IE and it
>didn't work any more. (If I remember correctly.)
RT may have had this problem but as I discussed above a propos
asynchronous pluggable protocols this is highly doable. There are some
windows versioning problems with this, mainly as to where in the
registry such settings have to be made.
>Another alternative is to invent our own, REBOL-friendly markup
>dialect and write browsers for that. (Maybe it could be a subset of
>HTML so standard browsers could surf it too.)
I could help a lot with this, much of my work revolves around designing
markup languages, etc.
[15/15] from: inetw3:mindspring at: 14-Mar-2003 23:08
Hello
It can get a little tricky, but you don't need to
use a subset of html, that wouldn't be that
great for web newbies trying to learn html
too(remember you want them to use Rebol).
Html can be rough by hand using an editor
for sure, but it is already the perfect dialect
along with xml no need to reinvent the wheel.
Why do I believe this? I've made a xhtml Rebol
view browser, an XMLDOM parser browser, and
an embedded multimedia mBED Dialect activex, Java applet,
rebol/view parser that dumps this code into any browser.
And my coding is horrible, but hey, it all works so I
know you guys can do this.
With out a shadow of a doubt, you can build
an ultimate compliant browser guys' because
you know Rebol, i don't, I'm all trial and error.
If you want to push Rebol, get it working with
messages and email in or with the browser
along with it's own desktop browser with xml,
xhtml, and it will be noticed.
Didn't think you guys cared about this browser
thing, that's why I don't talk much.
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted