<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_2030204</id>
	<title>HTML 5 Takes Aim At Flash and Silverlight</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245148620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"While Adobe, Microsoft, and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web, <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/print/79291">HTML 5 has the potential to eat these vendors' lunches,</a> offering Web experiences based on an industry standard. In fact, one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX. 'It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been,' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee. But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins 'really depends on what developers do,' says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic. It also depends on Microsoft, the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer. 'That's a big elephant in the room for them because you can imagine the Silverlight team [whose] whole existence is to add [this] functionality in. [But] if Internet Explorer puts it already in there, why do we have Silverlight?' asks Mozilla's Dion Almaer."</i> The RIA guys are quoted as saying they're not worried, because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out. Are they just whistling in the dark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " While Adobe , Microsoft , and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web , HTML 5 has the potential to eat these vendors ' lunches , offering Web experiences based on an industry standard .
In fact , one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash , Silverlight , and JavaFX .
'It would be a terrible step backward if humanity 's major development platform [ the Web ] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been, ' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson , a Google employee .
But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins 'really depends on what developers do, ' says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic .
It also depends on Microsoft , the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer .
'That 's a big elephant in the room for them because you can imagine the Silverlight team [ whose ] whole existence is to add [ this ] functionality in .
[ But ] if Internet Explorer puts it already in there , why do we have Silverlight ?
' asks Mozilla 's Dion Almaer .
" The RIA guys are quoted as saying they 're not worried , because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out .
Are they just whistling in the dark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "While Adobe, Microsoft, and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web, HTML 5 has the potential to eat these vendors' lunches, offering Web experiences based on an industry standard.
In fact, one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX.
'It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been,' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee.
But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins 'really depends on what developers do,' says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic.
It also depends on Microsoft, the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer.
'That's a big elephant in the room for them because you can imagine the Silverlight team [whose] whole existence is to add [this] functionality in.
[But] if Internet Explorer puts it already in there, why do we have Silverlight?
' asks Mozilla's Dion Almaer.
" The RIA guys are quoted as saying they're not worried, because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out.
Are they just whistling in the dark?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</id>
	<title>HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1245153600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've recently embarked upon a hobby project where I'm only targeting the latest browsers, excluding IE8.</p><p>Not until now have I realized how much we web developers are hampered by IE. Canvas and Javascript are a highly capable platform for interactive graphics, and it works across browsers and operating systems without issue. Chromium on Linux for example, incomplete as it is, works with canvas out of the box (not to mention about 10 times faster than FF in executing Javascript).</p><p>The ability to create web pages quickly, using convenient CSS2 and 3 rules, the ability to use piles and piles of Javascript without worry, the ability to have everything just work across my target browsers, it's utterly amazing. If we weren't stuck in this damn backwater due to having to support IE, the web would be a far more compelling platform.</p><p>I absolutely cannot wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted, but will that day ever come? Surely Microsoft realizes, as I have, how much potential is here, and I don't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.</p><p>For those projects that don't care about IE support, HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web. For the rest, business as usual for some time to come I'm afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently embarked upon a hobby project where I 'm only targeting the latest browsers , excluding IE8.Not until now have I realized how much we web developers are hampered by IE .
Canvas and Javascript are a highly capable platform for interactive graphics , and it works across browsers and operating systems without issue .
Chromium on Linux for example , incomplete as it is , works with canvas out of the box ( not to mention about 10 times faster than FF in executing Javascript ) .The ability to create web pages quickly , using convenient CSS2 and 3 rules , the ability to use piles and piles of Javascript without worry , the ability to have everything just work across my target browsers , it 's utterly amazing .
If we were n't stuck in this damn backwater due to having to support IE , the web would be a far more compelling platform.I absolutely can not wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted , but will that day ever come ?
Surely Microsoft realizes , as I have , how much potential is here , and I do n't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.For those projects that do n't care about IE support , HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web .
For the rest , business as usual for some time to come I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently embarked upon a hobby project where I'm only targeting the latest browsers, excluding IE8.Not until now have I realized how much we web developers are hampered by IE.
Canvas and Javascript are a highly capable platform for interactive graphics, and it works across browsers and operating systems without issue.
Chromium on Linux for example, incomplete as it is, works with canvas out of the box (not to mention about 10 times faster than FF in executing Javascript).The ability to create web pages quickly, using convenient CSS2 and 3 rules, the ability to use piles and piles of Javascript without worry, the ability to have everything just work across my target browsers, it's utterly amazing.
If we weren't stuck in this damn backwater due to having to support IE, the web would be a far more compelling platform.I absolutely cannot wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted, but will that day ever come?
Surely Microsoft realizes, as I have, how much potential is here, and I don't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.For those projects that don't care about IE support, HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web.
For the rest, business as usual for some time to come I'm afraid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355173</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have a very unusual definition of "app". If an entire app exists and you just need to embed it with 2 lines, you did not write an app, you used an existing one. If I make my own bash script to launch Firefox, did I write a web browser app?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have a very unusual definition of " app " .
If an entire app exists and you just need to embed it with 2 lines , you did not write an app , you used an existing one .
If I make my own bash script to launch Firefox , did I write a web browser app ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have a very unusual definition of "app".
If an entire app exists and you just need to embed it with 2 lines, you did not write an app, you used an existing one.
If I make my own bash script to launch Firefox, did I write a web browser app?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361129</id>
	<title>Re:WebKit vs. IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised no one has picked you up on this, WebKit is just a fork of KHTML. Apple certainly didn't 'start' it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one has picked you up on this , WebKit is just a fork of KHTML .
Apple certainly did n't 'start ' it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one has picked you up on this, WebKit is just a fork of KHTML.
Apple certainly didn't 'start' it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355529</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards?</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1245156720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I hear is that "we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [proprietary] company."</p><p>But when it comes to Linux and where system files are "kept" (read installed), versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest, folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.</p><p>How do they do it? By making lots of noise about choice. Where choice has put us to date is:  Being behind on the  desktop. We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams. Folks, we can do better.</p><p>Question is: Why the double standard?</p></div><p>I don't believe the goal of linux is to be #1 on the desktop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I hear is that " we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [ proprietary ] company .
" But when it comes to Linux and where system files are " kept " ( read installed ) , versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest , folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.How do they do it ?
By making lots of noise about choice .
Where choice has put us to date is : Being behind on the desktop .
We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams .
Folks , we can do better.Question is : Why the double standard ? I do n't believe the goal of linux is to be # 1 on the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I hear is that "we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [proprietary] company.
"But when it comes to Linux and where system files are "kept" (read installed), versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest, folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.How do they do it?
By making lots of noise about choice.
Where choice has put us to date is:  Being behind on the  desktop.
We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams.
Folks, we can do better.Question is: Why the double standard?I don't believe the goal of linux is to be #1 on the desktop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354779</id>
	<title>It's the tools stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245152640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If graphics artist types ca n't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash , we wo n't see uptake of HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356713</id>
	<title>Just ran a small test for HTML 5...</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1245164520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found <a href="http://www.benjoffe.com/code/demos/canvascape/textures" title="benjoffe.com" rel="nofollow">this website</a> [benjoffe.com] which demo's the canvas tag in HTML 5. It's basically a small maze, with different textures on the walls.</p><p>You're able to change the texture settings to either Lower, Low, Medium, or High.</p><p>Working my way up with the settings, using the latest Firefox 3.5 beta, Opera 10 Beta, and Google Chrome (just a straight download, no beta if there is one).. and on my machine I found:</p><ul>
<li>Google Chrome handles it the best. Even on highest, it moves just as well as Firefox on Lower (the lowest setting)</li><li>Firefox is slow on Medium, and majorly lags on Highest</li><li>Opera falls in the middle, alright on High, but has lag for sure</li></ul><p>It's not quite the results I was expecting. Granted it's just one test on a very, very premature standard, but being the other two are beta releases showing off and fixing up the newest and greatest, I figured Opera would take the lead with Chrome and Firefox near each other. I didn't try Safari, but if anyone else has all the HTML 5 compatible browsers installed give it a shot and see what you get.</p><p>If anyone else knows any other HTML 5 semi-intense webpages that exist yet, or some way to compare how the browsers stack up with HTML 5 so far, please post as I'd be interested in checking it out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this website [ benjoffe.com ] which demo 's the canvas tag in HTML 5 .
It 's basically a small maze , with different textures on the walls.You 're able to change the texture settings to either Lower , Low , Medium , or High.Working my way up with the settings , using the latest Firefox 3.5 beta , Opera 10 Beta , and Google Chrome ( just a straight download , no beta if there is one ) .. and on my machine I found : Google Chrome handles it the best .
Even on highest , it moves just as well as Firefox on Lower ( the lowest setting ) Firefox is slow on Medium , and majorly lags on HighestOpera falls in the middle , alright on High , but has lag for sureIt 's not quite the results I was expecting .
Granted it 's just one test on a very , very premature standard , but being the other two are beta releases showing off and fixing up the newest and greatest , I figured Opera would take the lead with Chrome and Firefox near each other .
I did n't try Safari , but if anyone else has all the HTML 5 compatible browsers installed give it a shot and see what you get.If anyone else knows any other HTML 5 semi-intense webpages that exist yet , or some way to compare how the browsers stack up with HTML 5 so far , please post as I 'd be interested in checking it out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this website [benjoffe.com] which demo's the canvas tag in HTML 5.
It's basically a small maze, with different textures on the walls.You're able to change the texture settings to either Lower, Low, Medium, or High.Working my way up with the settings, using the latest Firefox 3.5 beta, Opera 10 Beta, and Google Chrome (just a straight download, no beta if there is one).. and on my machine I found:
Google Chrome handles it the best.
Even on highest, it moves just as well as Firefox on Lower (the lowest setting)Firefox is slow on Medium, and majorly lags on HighestOpera falls in the middle, alright on High, but has lag for sureIt's not quite the results I was expecting.
Granted it's just one test on a very, very premature standard, but being the other two are beta releases showing off and fixing up the newest and greatest, I figured Opera would take the lead with Chrome and Firefox near each other.
I didn't try Safari, but if anyone else has all the HTML 5 compatible browsers installed give it a shot and see what you get.If anyone else knows any other HTML 5 semi-intense webpages that exist yet, or some way to compare how the browsers stack up with HTML 5 so far, please post as I'd be interested in checking it out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356173</id>
	<title>Sun uses Flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what it says about JavaFX that Jonathan Schwartz's blog uses Flash for its video?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what it says about JavaFX that Jonathan Schwartz 's blog uses Flash for its video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what it says about JavaFX that Jonathan Schwartz's blog uses Flash for its video?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355879</id>
	<title>HTML5 gives me The Fear</title>
	<author>maiken2051</author>
	<datestamp>1245158760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now you pretty much have to be Flash-literate to make singing/dancing ads that can annoy effectively across the browser genpop, and not many people are.

FlashBlock puts today's little pests peacefully to sleep.  What will I do when the enemy is indistinguishable from the page code, and anybody can hatch one with two lines of JavaScript?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now you pretty much have to be Flash-literate to make singing/dancing ads that can annoy effectively across the browser genpop , and not many people are .
FlashBlock puts today 's little pests peacefully to sleep .
What will I do when the enemy is indistinguishable from the page code , and anybody can hatch one with two lines of JavaScript ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now you pretty much have to be Flash-literate to make singing/dancing ads that can annoy effectively across the browser genpop, and not many people are.
FlashBlock puts today's little pests peacefully to sleep.
What will I do when the enemy is indistinguishable from the page code, and anybody can hatch one with two lines of JavaScript?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355267</id>
	<title>Re:Need good tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245155280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think Adobe would integrate HTML 5 media in Dreamweaver. Some solutions will lend themselves to different media approaches, so all paths being equal you're still using an Adobe product.</p><p>And chill on the Flash bash. The fact that there's so much bad content just reveals how accessible the tools are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think Adobe would integrate HTML 5 media in Dreamweaver .
Some solutions will lend themselves to different media approaches , so all paths being equal you 're still using an Adobe product.And chill on the Flash bash .
The fact that there 's so much bad content just reveals how accessible the tools are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think Adobe would integrate HTML 5 media in Dreamweaver.
Some solutions will lend themselves to different media approaches, so all paths being equal you're still using an Adobe product.And chill on the Flash bash.
The fact that there's so much bad content just reveals how accessible the tools are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358455</id>
	<title>Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No worries  authoring tools will come, it is as usual first the web developers will use it later on Adobe or another company integrates it in their toolchain then the graphics artits will start to use it as well.<br>It always has been like that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No worries authoring tools will come , it is as usual first the web developers will use it later on Adobe or another company integrates it in their toolchain then the graphics artits will start to use it as well.It always has been like that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No worries  authoring tools will come, it is as usual first the web developers will use it later on Adobe or another company integrates it in their toolchain then the graphics artits will start to use it as well.It always has been like that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360513</id>
	<title>Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>radarsat1</author>
	<datestamp>1245248040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course its true that many, perhaps most, artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language, and figuring out how to design algorithms.  I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place, but perhaps that's also a direct result of not being good at it.</p><p>In any case, you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \_do\_ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK.  They are perhaps a rare breed, but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.</p><p>Also, it's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along, he used to use Lisp!  And he is definitely not a programmer, so I was quite surprised.</p><p>Mind you, web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time, so they're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript, and then perhaps learn more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course its true that many , perhaps most , artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language , and figuring out how to design algorithms .
I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place , but perhaps that 's also a direct result of not being good at it.In any case , you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \ _do \ _ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK .
They are perhaps a rare breed , but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.Also , it 's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along , he used to use Lisp !
And he is definitely not a programmer , so I was quite surprised.Mind you , web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time , so they 're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript , and then perhaps learn more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course its true that many, perhaps most, artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language, and figuring out how to design algorithms.
I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place, but perhaps that's also a direct result of not being good at it.In any case, you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \_do\_ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK.
They are perhaps a rare breed, but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.Also, it's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along, he used to use Lisp!
And he is definitely not a programmer, so I was quite surprised.Mind you, web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time, so they're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript, and then perhaps learn more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359031</id>
	<title>If MS chooses, HTML5+CSS3 is 10 years out.</title>
	<author>Karellen</author>
	<datestamp>1245232560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out. Are they just whistling in the dark?</p></div></blockquote><p>If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years, then HTML5 + CSS3 is, to all intents and purposes, 10 years out.</p><p>There's no point in using the parts of CSS2 that IE6/7 doesn't support on your web page, because the number of people using those browsers is so big and un-ignorable that you <em>have</em> to find a way to do what you want using the bits that it does support. But once you've done that, what you've done generally looks correct in modern browsers too. Using the bits of CSS that IE doesn't support is therefore mostly redundant and will add to your maintenance headaches. Hence, as a developer, you're generally stuck with whatever IE chooses to support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out .
Are they just whistling in the dark ? If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years , then HTML5 + CSS3 is , to all intents and purposes , 10 years out.There 's no point in using the parts of CSS2 that IE6/7 does n't support on your web page , because the number of people using those browsers is so big and un-ignorable that you have to find a way to do what you want using the bits that it does support .
But once you 've done that , what you 've done generally looks correct in modern browsers too .
Using the bits of CSS that IE does n't support is therefore mostly redundant and will add to your maintenance headaches .
Hence , as a developer , you 're generally stuck with whatever IE chooses to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out.
Are they just whistling in the dark?If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years, then HTML5 + CSS3 is, to all intents and purposes, 10 years out.There's no point in using the parts of CSS2 that IE6/7 doesn't support on your web page, because the number of people using those browsers is so big and un-ignorable that you have to find a way to do what you want using the bits that it does support.
But once you've done that, what you've done generally looks correct in modern browsers too.
Using the bits of CSS that IE doesn't support is therefore mostly redundant and will add to your maintenance headaches.
Hence, as a developer, you're generally stuck with whatever IE chooses to support.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356641</id>
	<title>Re:Need good tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">1976 called...</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>1976 called... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1976 called... [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want no plugins, huh?</p><p>So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?</p><p>No?</p><p>Then I'm sorry, but most people who care about plugins in the first place, just won't bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want no plugins , huh ? So you 're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus , Noscript , Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper ? No ? Then I 'm sorry , but most people who care about plugins in the first place , just wo n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want no plugins, huh?So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?No?Then I'm sorry, but most people who care about plugins in the first place, just won't bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355415</id>
	<title>Microsoft?</title>
	<author>asdfndsagse</author>
	<datestamp>1245156000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization, but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs, i dont call that being involved, instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards, and try to slow down, and break apart the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization , but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs , i dont call that being involved , instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards , and try to slow down , and break apart the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization, but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs, i dont call that being involved, instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards, and try to slow down, and break apart the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355611</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was some sort of effort to standardize the Linux filesystem: LSB <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux\_Standard\_Base" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux\_Standard\_Base</a> [wikipedia.org] .</p><p>I don't know how it fared, hopefully someone more informed will come along and shed some light.</p><p>I thought FreeBSD's layout was pretty much as good as it was going to get for a POSIX filesystem. But alas they have other problems keeping me from using it (unjournaled fs and the fact that you must build security updates from source using ports being the primary ones).</p><p>They are slowly supporting ZFS but I doubt that'll be ready for quite a while, if ever, in a form I don't need to babysit; and I think they are pretty much adamantly refusing to remedy the latter problem.</p><p>Earth to BSD devs, I don't want to recompile Samba/CUPS/whatever every time it needs an update which pegs my CPU usage at 100\% for quite some time. Please offer updates in binary form.</p><p>(Also please don't stall the boot process waiting for a DHCP lease acquisition)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was some sort of effort to standardize the Linux filesystem : LSB http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux \ _Standard \ _Base [ wikipedia.org ] .I do n't know how it fared , hopefully someone more informed will come along and shed some light.I thought FreeBSD 's layout was pretty much as good as it was going to get for a POSIX filesystem .
But alas they have other problems keeping me from using it ( unjournaled fs and the fact that you must build security updates from source using ports being the primary ones ) .They are slowly supporting ZFS but I doubt that 'll be ready for quite a while , if ever , in a form I do n't need to babysit ; and I think they are pretty much adamantly refusing to remedy the latter problem.Earth to BSD devs , I do n't want to recompile Samba/CUPS/whatever every time it needs an update which pegs my CPU usage at 100 \ % for quite some time .
Please offer updates in binary form .
( Also please do n't stall the boot process waiting for a DHCP lease acquisition )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was some sort of effort to standardize the Linux filesystem: LSB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux\_Standard\_Base [wikipedia.org] .I don't know how it fared, hopefully someone more informed will come along and shed some light.I thought FreeBSD's layout was pretty much as good as it was going to get for a POSIX filesystem.
But alas they have other problems keeping me from using it (unjournaled fs and the fact that you must build security updates from source using ports being the primary ones).They are slowly supporting ZFS but I doubt that'll be ready for quite a while, if ever, in a form I don't need to babysit; and I think they are pretty much adamantly refusing to remedy the latter problem.Earth to BSD devs, I don't want to recompile Samba/CUPS/whatever every time it needs an update which pegs my CPU usage at 100\% for quite some time.
Please offer updates in binary form.
(Also please don't stall the boot process waiting for a DHCP lease acquisition)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356623</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://blogs.computerworld.com/64\_bit\_linux\_adobe\_flash\_player\_surprisingly\_good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.computerworld.com/64 \ _bit \ _linux \ _adobe \ _flash \ _player \ _surprisingly \ _good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.computerworld.com/64\_bit\_linux\_adobe\_flash\_player\_surprisingly\_good</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357171</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>backdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1245168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is cute.  I double tapped to create a new box, then did document.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]......  a bunch of things.  It was cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is cute .
I double tapped to create a new box , then did document.getElementsByTagName ( " p " ) [ 0 ] ...... a bunch of things .
It was cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is cute.
I double tapped to create a new box, then did document.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]......  a bunch of things.
It was cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354901</id>
	<title>It will be a moving target</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245153240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the browsers support html 5, people can start making content for it. The whole reason for flash and siverlight are the failures of the old html (which still shines despite having all this stuff bolted-on over the years to keep up)</p><p>If HTML 5 means just another bunch of tags with another bunch of CSS descripters and a set of scripts in a different language bolted-on to make it do stuff, along with spotty browser support, I suspect the one-stop shops of UI with scripting that flash and sliverlight provide will have a long future.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the browsers support html 5 , people can start making content for it .
The whole reason for flash and siverlight are the failures of the old html ( which still shines despite having all this stuff bolted-on over the years to keep up ) If HTML 5 means just another bunch of tags with another bunch of CSS descripters and a set of scripts in a different language bolted-on to make it do stuff , along with spotty browser support , I suspect the one-stop shops of UI with scripting that flash and sliverlight provide will have a long future .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the browsers support html 5, people can start making content for it.
The whole reason for flash and siverlight are the failures of the old html (which still shines despite having all this stuff bolted-on over the years to keep up)If HTML 5 means just another bunch of tags with another bunch of CSS descripters and a set of scripts in a different language bolted-on to make it do stuff, along with spotty browser support, I suspect the one-stop shops of UI with scripting that flash and sliverlight provide will have a long future.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357881</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>epic fail on my webkit browser the widgets are all messed up, the menus do work</p><p>Little point to a 1 browser framework.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>epic fail on my webkit browser the widgets are all messed up , the menus do workLittle point to a 1 browser framework.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>epic fail on my webkit browser the widgets are all messed up, the menus do workLittle point to a 1 browser framework.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355013</id>
	<title>The problem with HTML is the implementations</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1245153900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No browser implements HTML properly. In some instances there is no such thing as "proper" since the spec is ambiguous, contradictory or forgiving, or the content abuses lax enforcement of doctypes leading browsers needing to implement all kinds of the quirks. Even if HTML 5 were rigourously defined and backed up by proper compliance testing, you only have to look at HTML 4 or indeed proper PNG support to realise how long it will take for browsers to properly support it. Even if HTML 5 were properly supported by say, Google Chrome, is it at all likely for the majority of web users to switch to that browser? Of course they won't. They'll stick with whatever they have until they are compelled to upgrade.
<p>
So it's no surprise sites turn to Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX. While they are proprietary technologies they do generally work as claimed and even in a cross-browser and cross-platform manner. It's also easy for sites to persuade people to download &amp; install the plugins without the trauma of upgrading or replacing their browser since the browser will help them do it.
</p><p>
Therefore I don't see HTML 5 supplanting RIA plugins for a very long time if ever. It would require decent support by all leading browsers. In some instances such as Internet Explorer, there is even a very major conflict of interest which makes it unlikely to happen. Aside from these hurdles, another major issue are AJAX toolkits and development environments. Frankly developing AJAX stinks for all sorts of reasons, and I don't see that situation changing much either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No browser implements HTML properly .
In some instances there is no such thing as " proper " since the spec is ambiguous , contradictory or forgiving , or the content abuses lax enforcement of doctypes leading browsers needing to implement all kinds of the quirks .
Even if HTML 5 were rigourously defined and backed up by proper compliance testing , you only have to look at HTML 4 or indeed proper PNG support to realise how long it will take for browsers to properly support it .
Even if HTML 5 were properly supported by say , Google Chrome , is it at all likely for the majority of web users to switch to that browser ?
Of course they wo n't .
They 'll stick with whatever they have until they are compelled to upgrade .
So it 's no surprise sites turn to Flex , Silverlight or JavaFX .
While they are proprietary technologies they do generally work as claimed and even in a cross-browser and cross-platform manner .
It 's also easy for sites to persuade people to download &amp; install the plugins without the trauma of upgrading or replacing their browser since the browser will help them do it .
Therefore I do n't see HTML 5 supplanting RIA plugins for a very long time if ever .
It would require decent support by all leading browsers .
In some instances such as Internet Explorer , there is even a very major conflict of interest which makes it unlikely to happen .
Aside from these hurdles , another major issue are AJAX toolkits and development environments .
Frankly developing AJAX stinks for all sorts of reasons , and I do n't see that situation changing much either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No browser implements HTML properly.
In some instances there is no such thing as "proper" since the spec is ambiguous, contradictory or forgiving, or the content abuses lax enforcement of doctypes leading browsers needing to implement all kinds of the quirks.
Even if HTML 5 were rigourously defined and backed up by proper compliance testing, you only have to look at HTML 4 or indeed proper PNG support to realise how long it will take for browsers to properly support it.
Even if HTML 5 were properly supported by say, Google Chrome, is it at all likely for the majority of web users to switch to that browser?
Of course they won't.
They'll stick with whatever they have until they are compelled to upgrade.
So it's no surprise sites turn to Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX.
While they are proprietary technologies they do generally work as claimed and even in a cross-browser and cross-platform manner.
It's also easy for sites to persuade people to download &amp; install the plugins without the trauma of upgrading or replacing their browser since the browser will help them do it.
Therefore I don't see HTML 5 supplanting RIA plugins for a very long time if ever.
It would require decent support by all leading browsers.
In some instances such as Internet Explorer, there is even a very major conflict of interest which makes it unlikely to happen.
Aside from these hurdles, another major issue are AJAX toolkits and development environments.
Frankly developing AJAX stinks for all sorts of reasons, and I don't see that situation changing much either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361969</id>
	<title>Re:What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>entrigant</author>
	<datestamp>1245255900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took microsoft 10 years to kind of fully support HTML4 and CSS2 w/ IE8. Another 10 for CSS3 and HTML5 would fit historical records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took microsoft 10 years to kind of fully support HTML4 and CSS2 w/ IE8 .
Another 10 for CSS3 and HTML5 would fit historical records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took microsoft 10 years to kind of fully support HTML4 and CSS2 w/ IE8.
Another 10 for CSS3 and HTML5 would fit historical records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909</id>
	<title>What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>laughing rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1245153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIA guys are quoted as saying they're not worried, because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out.</p></div><p>If this is the case, how far behind will the browsers be in supporting the standards?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIA guys are quoted as saying they 're not worried , because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out.If this is the case , how far behind will the browsers be in supporting the standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIA guys are quoted as saying they're not worried, because HTML 5 + CSS 3 is 10 years out.If this is the case, how far behind will the browsers be in supporting the standards?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28367563</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1245240240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want no plugins, huh?</p><p>So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?</p><p>No?</p><p>Then I'm sorry, but most people who care about plugins in the first place, just won't bother.</p></div><p>A "plugin", in web browser jargon, is an application that uses the simple, cross-browser <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape\_Plugin\_Application\_Programming\_Interface" title="wikipedia.org">NPAPI</a> [wikipedia.org].  Flash, Java, Silverlight, and Adobe Reader are good examples of plugins.</p><p>Plugins are very limited in what they can do: for instance, they can get direct input from the user and do direct output to part of the screen that the browser gives them.  If you pay attention, you'll notice that things like Flash often are out of sync a bit with the rest of the page layout, like being drawn on top of everything even if they should be cut off.  Plugins can't easily interface with the browser's UI or make other complicated changes.  The NPAPI doesn't expose higher-level details like that to them.  Plugins are invoked only when a particular media type needs to be handled, and exit when they're no longer needed.  They can't be used for anything other than handling particular media types.</p><p>Since NPAPI is standard and stable, a given plugin can (AFAIK) run in any browser on the target platform that supports NPAPI (meaning everything except IE, as usual in web development).  They also don't care what browser version you use them on.  But they pay for this with inflexibility.</p><p>AdBlock Plus, Flashblock, and Element Hiding Helper are all examples of extensions, not plugins.  You'll notice that in Firefox, there are separate tabs for "Extensions" and "Plugins" in the Add-ons window.  Extensions can do much more than plugins.  They have access to a large collection of hooks, and can run continuously.  They can do things like edit menus, dynamically alter rendered content, and so on.  But they pay for this by being browser-specific, and not even always being compatible between versions of the same browser.</p><p>Plugins are what the GP was objecting to, and plugins are bad.  They're only really needed to handle nonstandard formats like Flash: if the format were openly specified, support could be integrated directly in the browser (as with HTML5's canvas, video, etc.).  Plugins are always native compiled code, and so can introduce crashes, memory leaks, and serious security vulnerabilities if not well-written, and the NPAPI makes it hard to cordon them off into their own process to prevent this.  Most plugins are closed-source and proprietary, even if you use an open-source browser or operating system.</p><p>Extensions are a totally different story.  Extensions are most often written in JavaScript, so they introduce no special stability problems and are automatically at least visible-source.  Firefox extensions are mostly open-source.  The worst you can say for extensions is that they're often slow, and the popular ones should usually be integrated into the browser proper.</p><p>So <em>extensions</em> are okay.  But if <em>plugins</em> were to die in favor of open standards, the web would be a much better place for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want no plugins , huh ? So you 're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus , Noscript , Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper ? No ? Then I 'm sorry , but most people who care about plugins in the first place , just wo n't bother.A " plugin " , in web browser jargon , is an application that uses the simple , cross-browser NPAPI [ wikipedia.org ] .
Flash , Java , Silverlight , and Adobe Reader are good examples of plugins.Plugins are very limited in what they can do : for instance , they can get direct input from the user and do direct output to part of the screen that the browser gives them .
If you pay attention , you 'll notice that things like Flash often are out of sync a bit with the rest of the page layout , like being drawn on top of everything even if they should be cut off .
Plugins ca n't easily interface with the browser 's UI or make other complicated changes .
The NPAPI does n't expose higher-level details like that to them .
Plugins are invoked only when a particular media type needs to be handled , and exit when they 're no longer needed .
They ca n't be used for anything other than handling particular media types.Since NPAPI is standard and stable , a given plugin can ( AFAIK ) run in any browser on the target platform that supports NPAPI ( meaning everything except IE , as usual in web development ) .
They also do n't care what browser version you use them on .
But they pay for this with inflexibility.AdBlock Plus , Flashblock , and Element Hiding Helper are all examples of extensions , not plugins .
You 'll notice that in Firefox , there are separate tabs for " Extensions " and " Plugins " in the Add-ons window .
Extensions can do much more than plugins .
They have access to a large collection of hooks , and can run continuously .
They can do things like edit menus , dynamically alter rendered content , and so on .
But they pay for this by being browser-specific , and not even always being compatible between versions of the same browser.Plugins are what the GP was objecting to , and plugins are bad .
They 're only really needed to handle nonstandard formats like Flash : if the format were openly specified , support could be integrated directly in the browser ( as with HTML5 's canvas , video , etc. ) .
Plugins are always native compiled code , and so can introduce crashes , memory leaks , and serious security vulnerabilities if not well-written , and the NPAPI makes it hard to cordon them off into their own process to prevent this .
Most plugins are closed-source and proprietary , even if you use an open-source browser or operating system.Extensions are a totally different story .
Extensions are most often written in JavaScript , so they introduce no special stability problems and are automatically at least visible-source .
Firefox extensions are mostly open-source .
The worst you can say for extensions is that they 're often slow , and the popular ones should usually be integrated into the browser proper.So extensions are okay .
But if plugins were to die in favor of open standards , the web would be a much better place for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want no plugins, huh?So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?No?Then I'm sorry, but most people who care about plugins in the first place, just won't bother.A "plugin", in web browser jargon, is an application that uses the simple, cross-browser NPAPI [wikipedia.org].
Flash, Java, Silverlight, and Adobe Reader are good examples of plugins.Plugins are very limited in what they can do: for instance, they can get direct input from the user and do direct output to part of the screen that the browser gives them.
If you pay attention, you'll notice that things like Flash often are out of sync a bit with the rest of the page layout, like being drawn on top of everything even if they should be cut off.
Plugins can't easily interface with the browser's UI or make other complicated changes.
The NPAPI doesn't expose higher-level details like that to them.
Plugins are invoked only when a particular media type needs to be handled, and exit when they're no longer needed.
They can't be used for anything other than handling particular media types.Since NPAPI is standard and stable, a given plugin can (AFAIK) run in any browser on the target platform that supports NPAPI (meaning everything except IE, as usual in web development).
They also don't care what browser version you use them on.
But they pay for this with inflexibility.AdBlock Plus, Flashblock, and Element Hiding Helper are all examples of extensions, not plugins.
You'll notice that in Firefox, there are separate tabs for "Extensions" and "Plugins" in the Add-ons window.
Extensions can do much more than plugins.
They have access to a large collection of hooks, and can run continuously.
They can do things like edit menus, dynamically alter rendered content, and so on.
But they pay for this by being browser-specific, and not even always being compatible between versions of the same browser.Plugins are what the GP was objecting to, and plugins are bad.
They're only really needed to handle nonstandard formats like Flash: if the format were openly specified, support could be integrated directly in the browser (as with HTML5's canvas, video, etc.).
Plugins are always native compiled code, and so can introduce crashes, memory leaks, and serious security vulnerabilities if not well-written, and the NPAPI makes it hard to cordon them off into their own process to prevent this.
Most plugins are closed-source and proprietary, even if you use an open-source browser or operating system.Extensions are a totally different story.
Extensions are most often written in JavaScript, so they introduce no special stability problems and are automatically at least visible-source.
Firefox extensions are mostly open-source.
The worst you can say for extensions is that they're often slow, and the popular ones should usually be integrated into the browser proper.So extensions are okay.
But if plugins were to die in favor of open standards, the web would be a much better place for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355927</id>
	<title>I don't like the Javascript centrism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not at all. I recently started trying out the language and I've never came across a language I had so much trouble with (assembly and C aside) picking up. And I really like strong typing. Here's hoping we'll have other options than Javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at all .
I recently started trying out the language and I 've never came across a language I had so much trouble with ( assembly and C aside ) picking up .
And I really like strong typing .
Here 's hoping we 'll have other options than Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at all.
I recently started trying out the language and I've never came across a language I had so much trouble with (assembly and C aside) picking up.
And I really like strong typing.
Here's hoping we'll have other options than Javascript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357667</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1245173580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we'll see more cutting-edge web designers starting to do what Apple is already doing on some pages of their own site: using HTML5 and then, for obsolete browsers like IE, loading a Javascript compatibility library that reparses the page into HTML4 elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'll see more cutting-edge web designers starting to do what Apple is already doing on some pages of their own site : using HTML5 and then , for obsolete browsers like IE , loading a Javascript compatibility library that reparses the page into HTML4 elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'll see more cutting-edge web designers starting to do what Apple is already doing on some pages of their own site: using HTML5 and then, for obsolete browsers like IE, loading a Javascript compatibility library that reparses the page into HTML4 elements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355769</id>
	<title>Why is it?</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245158040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that every time a new technology is created we have to phrase it as "taking aim" or "taking on" or being a "[blank] killer?"  Why can't we all just get along?<br> <br>

But seriously, why can't we look at this in terms of the development doors that will be opened, and not mind the fact that RIA content will someday probably fall by the wayside?  Progress happens, and those companies/individuals/organizations that fail to adapt fall behind and eventually wither.  I think we can all agree that HTML5 has the potential to be awesome, let's approach it in terms of how to make it as awesome as it can be, instead of wringing our hands over the fates of the poor, defenseless multinational corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that every time a new technology is created we have to phrase it as " taking aim " or " taking on " or being a " [ blank ] killer ?
" Why ca n't we all just get along ?
But seriously , why ca n't we look at this in terms of the development doors that will be opened , and not mind the fact that RIA content will someday probably fall by the wayside ?
Progress happens , and those companies/individuals/organizations that fail to adapt fall behind and eventually wither .
I think we can all agree that HTML5 has the potential to be awesome , let 's approach it in terms of how to make it as awesome as it can be , instead of wringing our hands over the fates of the poor , defenseless multinational corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that every time a new technology is created we have to phrase it as "taking aim" or "taking on" or being a "[blank] killer?
"  Why can't we all just get along?
But seriously, why can't we look at this in terms of the development doors that will be opened, and not mind the fact that RIA content will someday probably fall by the wayside?
Progress happens, and those companies/individuals/organizations that fail to adapt fall behind and eventually wither.
I think we can all agree that HTML5 has the potential to be awesome, let's approach it in terms of how to make it as awesome as it can be, instead of wringing our hands over the fates of the poor, defenseless multinational corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355413</id>
	<title>Slashdot users are fucking bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope your penis gets covered in bees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope your penis gets covered in bees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope your penis gets covered in bees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355157</id>
	<title>Quite an imagination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you can imagine [...] if Internet Explorer puts [HTML5] already in there, why do we have Silverlight?</p></div><p>Sadly I think this question will remain rhetorical for the foreseeable future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can imagine [ ... ] if Internet Explorer puts [ HTML5 ] already in there , why do we have Silverlight ? Sadly I think this question will remain rhetorical for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can imagine [...] if Internet Explorer puts [HTML5] already in there, why do we have Silverlight?Sadly I think this question will remain rhetorical for the foreseeable future.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035</id>
	<title>Double Standards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I hear is that "we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [proprietary] company."</p><p>But when it comes to Linux and where system files are "kept" (read installed), versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest, folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.</p><p>How do they do it? By making lots of noise about choice. Where choice has put us to date is:  Being behind on the  desktop. We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams. Folks, we can do better.</p><p>Question is: Why the double standard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I hear is that " we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [ proprietary ] company .
" But when it comes to Linux and where system files are " kept " ( read installed ) , versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest , folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.How do they do it ?
By making lots of noise about choice .
Where choice has put us to date is : Being behind on the desktop .
We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams .
Folks , we can do better.Question is : Why the double standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I hear is that "we need an open standard on video that is not controlled by one [proprietary] company.
"But when it comes to Linux and where system files are "kept" (read installed), versions and naming conventions for files and all the rest, folks advocate for what is essentially chaos on the Linux platform.How do they do it?
By making lots of noise about choice.
Where choice has put us to date is:  Being behind on the  desktop.
We should have a target system configuration and still leave those who want the status quo to pursue their dreams.
Folks, we can do better.Question is: Why the double standard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354913</id>
	<title>That's nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it won't work in IE until the point's moot. Remember kids, it's not done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it wo n't work in IE until the point 's moot .
Remember kids , it 's not done until Lotus 1-2-3 wo n't run !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it won't work in IE until the point's moot.
Remember kids, it's not done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355133</id>
	<title>Re:RIA?</title>
	<author>Virus Hunter</author>
	<datestamp>1245154500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIA stands for Rich Internet Application.  It's a term that was coined by Macromedia in order to describe the rich user experiences that can be provided by flash.  The term has gained a lot of popularity, and it generally refers to any technology that allows the user to have a rich application experience from within the browser.  Currently the major RIA platforms are Flash, Silverlight, and Java FX, and I've also seen this term applied to Ajax before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIA stands for Rich Internet Application .
It 's a term that was coined by Macromedia in order to describe the rich user experiences that can be provided by flash .
The term has gained a lot of popularity , and it generally refers to any technology that allows the user to have a rich application experience from within the browser .
Currently the major RIA platforms are Flash , Silverlight , and Java FX , and I 've also seen this term applied to Ajax before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIA stands for Rich Internet Application.
It's a term that was coined by Macromedia in order to describe the rich user experiences that can be provided by flash.
The term has gained a lot of popularity, and it generally refers to any technology that allows the user to have a rich application experience from within the browser.
Currently the major RIA platforms are Flash, Silverlight, and Java FX, and I've also seen this term applied to Ajax before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356939</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so you know, you did some Mac-specific stuff too.  So the basics load and work in Firefox 3.5, for example, but the keymap stuff doesn't seem to work as it does in Safari 4 for Mac (i.e. the equal sign won't show up in a box).  And Safari 4 for Windows doesn't seem to be passing right click events into your app properly, so it's totally non-functional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so you know , you did some Mac-specific stuff too .
So the basics load and work in Firefox 3.5 , for example , but the keymap stuff does n't seem to work as it does in Safari 4 for Mac ( i.e .
the equal sign wo n't show up in a box ) .
And Safari 4 for Windows does n't seem to be passing right click events into your app properly , so it 's totally non-functional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so you know, you did some Mac-specific stuff too.
So the basics load and work in Firefox 3.5, for example, but the keymap stuff doesn't seem to work as it does in Safari 4 for Mac (i.e.
the equal sign won't show up in a box).
And Safari 4 for Windows doesn't seem to be passing right click events into your app properly, so it's totally non-functional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360127</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto to everything you said. What many people forget is that Internet facing applications for the general public are the minority of development.</p><p>Just like shrink wrapped software  vertical market apps  internally developed apps, so are Internet facing apps  browser based vertical market apps  browser based internally developer apps.</p><p>If I am selling a vertical market app or building an internal app, I want to use the tools that make the development job the easiest, fastest, most robust, etc. JavaScript ain't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto to everything you said .
What many people forget is that Internet facing applications for the general public are the minority of development.Just like shrink wrapped software vertical market apps internally developed apps , so are Internet facing apps browser based vertical market apps browser based internally developer apps.If I am selling a vertical market app or building an internal app , I want to use the tools that make the development job the easiest , fastest , most robust , etc .
JavaScript ai n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto to everything you said.
What many people forget is that Internet facing applications for the general public are the minority of development.Just like shrink wrapped software  vertical market apps  internally developed apps, so are Internet facing apps  browser based vertical market apps  browser based internally developer apps.If I am selling a vertical market app or building an internal app, I want to use the tools that make the development job the easiest, fastest, most robust, etc.
JavaScript ain't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355421</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245156000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a hard time believing that IE will be able to hold out like this over the long-term.  One of the big hold-outs on IE are businesses who have legacy web apps.  Sooner or later, they'll be willing to upgrade/replace those, and if you can simplify development and save money, and all you have to do is install a free web browser that works on your existing platform, people will do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time believing that IE will be able to hold out like this over the long-term .
One of the big hold-outs on IE are businesses who have legacy web apps .
Sooner or later , they 'll be willing to upgrade/replace those , and if you can simplify development and save money , and all you have to do is install a free web browser that works on your existing platform , people will do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time believing that IE will be able to hold out like this over the long-term.
One of the big hold-outs on IE are businesses who have legacy web apps.
Sooner or later, they'll be willing to upgrade/replace those, and if you can simplify development and save money, and all you have to do is install a free web browser that works on your existing platform, people will do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355631</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I absolutely cannot wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted, but will that day ever come? Surely Microsoft realizes, as I have, how much potential is here, and I don't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.</p></div><p>It doesn't matter if they attempt to hold IE back, all it's going to take is one compelling must have killer app in HTML5 and they'll either have to start coding support, or everyone will just simply download another browser.  With HTML5 support and Google Wave coming out I'm starting to understand why Google released Chrome.  If people hear about Google Wave everywhere and then try to go to the site and see a "incompatible with your browser, download Google Chrome" message, they'll probably just download and install the damn thing.  That gives Google control over the platform it's running on then as well.  Firefox has been eroding IE's marketshare simply by being a better browser, imagine what the power of a killer app, marketing and a big name like Google will be able to do.  I've already seen Google putting IE specific "download google chrome" advertisements on some google homepages, it's only a matter of time before the browser is swept right out from under them if they don't keep up with the other browsers.  More than likely, IE will just become more compliant.  And I don't really care either way, as long as we as developers can move forward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely can not wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted , but will that day ever come ?
Surely Microsoft realizes , as I have , how much potential is here , and I do n't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.It does n't matter if they attempt to hold IE back , all it 's going to take is one compelling must have killer app in HTML5 and they 'll either have to start coding support , or everyone will just simply download another browser .
With HTML5 support and Google Wave coming out I 'm starting to understand why Google released Chrome .
If people hear about Google Wave everywhere and then try to go to the site and see a " incompatible with your browser , download Google Chrome " message , they 'll probably just download and install the damn thing .
That gives Google control over the platform it 's running on then as well .
Firefox has been eroding IE 's marketshare simply by being a better browser , imagine what the power of a killer app , marketing and a big name like Google will be able to do .
I 've already seen Google putting IE specific " download google chrome " advertisements on some google homepages , it 's only a matter of time before the browser is swept right out from under them if they do n't keep up with the other browsers .
More than likely , IE will just become more compliant .
And I do n't really care either way , as long as we as developers can move forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely cannot wait for the day when HTML5 and CSS3 are widely supported and adopted, but will that day ever come?
Surely Microsoft realizes, as I have, how much potential is here, and I don't doubt that some of the higher ups would hold IE back so that developers are forced to use their plugins in order to deliver their content.It doesn't matter if they attempt to hold IE back, all it's going to take is one compelling must have killer app in HTML5 and they'll either have to start coding support, or everyone will just simply download another browser.
With HTML5 support and Google Wave coming out I'm starting to understand why Google released Chrome.
If people hear about Google Wave everywhere and then try to go to the site and see a "incompatible with your browser, download Google Chrome" message, they'll probably just download and install the damn thing.
That gives Google control over the platform it's running on then as well.
Firefox has been eroding IE's marketshare simply by being a better browser, imagine what the power of a killer app, marketing and a big name like Google will be able to do.
I've already seen Google putting IE specific "download google chrome" advertisements on some google homepages, it's only a matter of time before the browser is swept right out from under them if they don't keep up with the other browsers.
More than likely, IE will just become more compliant.
And I don't really care either way, as long as we as developers can move forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358531</id>
	<title>Different leage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing HTML5 with JavaFX or Silverlight is like comparing apples with oranges.</p><p>JavaFX and Silverlight use compiled programming languages with everything you can expect from a modern programming language like threads, and annotations. Furthermore they have the complete toolset to create, refactor, debug and test programs offline.</p><p>HTML5/CSS doesnt even have a decent programming language. There is only java script, which is a interpreted, week-typed script language which is very slow and doesn't support essential features like threads for example.</p><p>I think HTML5 will make Flash obsolete, but Silverlight and JavaFX play in a different leage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing HTML5 with JavaFX or Silverlight is like comparing apples with oranges.JavaFX and Silverlight use compiled programming languages with everything you can expect from a modern programming language like threads , and annotations .
Furthermore they have the complete toolset to create , refactor , debug and test programs offline.HTML5/CSS doesnt even have a decent programming language .
There is only java script , which is a interpreted , week-typed script language which is very slow and does n't support essential features like threads for example.I think HTML5 will make Flash obsolete , but Silverlight and JavaFX play in a different leage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing HTML5 with JavaFX or Silverlight is like comparing apples with oranges.JavaFX and Silverlight use compiled programming languages with everything you can expect from a modern programming language like threads, and annotations.
Furthermore they have the complete toolset to create, refactor, debug and test programs offline.HTML5/CSS doesnt even have a decent programming language.
There is only java script, which is a interpreted, week-typed script language which is very slow and doesn't support essential features like threads for example.I think HTML5 will make Flash obsolete, but Silverlight and JavaFX play in a different leage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357005</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe brought this on themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls, such as animate only while cursor hovers, sound off till I say so, etc.</p></div><p>If HTML5 enables equivalently rich media players to Flash and Silverlight, HTML5 will be rich enough for publishers to not enable end user controls they don't want enabled.</p><p>Or, to put it another way, if HTML5 makes it trivial for end users to skip the commercials in commercial-funded television, no one will be publishing commercial-funded television in HTML5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls , such as animate only while cursor hovers , sound off till I say so , etc.If HTML5 enables equivalently rich media players to Flash and Silverlight , HTML5 will be rich enough for publishers to not enable end user controls they do n't want enabled.Or , to put it another way , if HTML5 makes it trivial for end users to skip the commercials in commercial-funded television , no one will be publishing commercial-funded television in HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls, such as animate only while cursor hovers, sound off till I say so, etc.If HTML5 enables equivalently rich media players to Flash and Silverlight, HTML5 will be rich enough for publishers to not enable end user controls they don't want enabled.Or, to put it another way, if HTML5 makes it trivial for end users to skip the commercials in commercial-funded television, no one will be publishing commercial-funded television in HTML5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356067</id>
	<title>Openlaszlo</title>
	<author>yossie</author>
	<datestamp>1245160020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an Open Source product named Openlaszlo.  It is a RIA development platform that can output both Flash 10 and DHTML 4 applications from the same source  that are to all intents and purposes identical in function and look.  Check them out at http://www.openlaszlo.org/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an Open Source product named Openlaszlo .
It is a RIA development platform that can output both Flash 10 and DHTML 4 applications from the same source that are to all intents and purposes identical in function and look .
Check them out at http : //www.openlaszlo.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an Open Source product named Openlaszlo.
It is a RIA development platform that can output both Flash 10 and DHTML 4 applications from the same source  that are to all intents and purposes identical in function and look.
Check them out at http://www.openlaszlo.org/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358955</id>
	<title>Single Vendor versus 10 Vendors/Committees</title>
	<author>slaingod</author>
	<datestamp>1245231780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Flex more and more where possible, simply because it lets me focus on what I care about, the value that my code brings to things, NOT trying to make sure it works in X different browsers that each need to be tweaked, etc.</p><p>When using Adobe (or MS for the color of a flash, Silverlight), I have one vendor, with one vision, one set of design tools, one set of help files, where most of the examples I find on the web I can use immediately and get back to work.</p><p>With HTML5, I have:<br>HTML Committee (w3c, etc.)<br>Javascript committee<br>CSS Committee<br>1 of many javascript libraries, like Prototype, JQuery, etc.</p><p>Then you have:<br>Microsoft (IE)<br>Mozilla (FF)<br>Safari<br>Google<br>Opera, etc.</p><p>each with their own implementations of the 3 committees work, that are partial and flaky and require the above mentioned javascript frameworks to even begin to be useful since they incorporate some of those browser work arounds. But then everytime you look for an example on the web, you find something that uses the framework you aren't using, so you have to keep looking or rewrite code you really have no interest in as part of your business.</p><p>Until there is a unified framework that is actually Write Once, Run and look the same Anywhere as Flex (or Silverlight), there will be a place for them.  MXML (and possibly XAML) are simply a huge relief to work with after dealing with the morass of HTML/JS/CSS dev.</p><p>I absolutely agree that the mobile market is a BIG issue that needs to be dealt with, with Flex-Flash/Silverlight though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Flex more and more where possible , simply because it lets me focus on what I care about , the value that my code brings to things , NOT trying to make sure it works in X different browsers that each need to be tweaked , etc.When using Adobe ( or MS for the color of a flash , Silverlight ) , I have one vendor , with one vision , one set of design tools , one set of help files , where most of the examples I find on the web I can use immediately and get back to work.With HTML5 , I have : HTML Committee ( w3c , etc .
) Javascript committeeCSS Committee1 of many javascript libraries , like Prototype , JQuery , etc.Then you have : Microsoft ( IE ) Mozilla ( FF ) SafariGoogleOpera , etc.each with their own implementations of the 3 committees work , that are partial and flaky and require the above mentioned javascript frameworks to even begin to be useful since they incorporate some of those browser work arounds .
But then everytime you look for an example on the web , you find something that uses the framework you are n't using , so you have to keep looking or rewrite code you really have no interest in as part of your business.Until there is a unified framework that is actually Write Once , Run and look the same Anywhere as Flex ( or Silverlight ) , there will be a place for them .
MXML ( and possibly XAML ) are simply a huge relief to work with after dealing with the morass of HTML/JS/CSS dev.I absolutely agree that the mobile market is a BIG issue that needs to be dealt with , with Flex-Flash/Silverlight though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Flex more and more where possible, simply because it lets me focus on what I care about, the value that my code brings to things, NOT trying to make sure it works in X different browsers that each need to be tweaked, etc.When using Adobe (or MS for the color of a flash, Silverlight), I have one vendor, with one vision, one set of design tools, one set of help files, where most of the examples I find on the web I can use immediately and get back to work.With HTML5, I have:HTML Committee (w3c, etc.
)Javascript committeeCSS Committee1 of many javascript libraries, like Prototype, JQuery, etc.Then you have:Microsoft (IE)Mozilla (FF)SafariGoogleOpera, etc.each with their own implementations of the 3 committees work, that are partial and flaky and require the above mentioned javascript frameworks to even begin to be useful since they incorporate some of those browser work arounds.
But then everytime you look for an example on the web, you find something that uses the framework you aren't using, so you have to keep looking or rewrite code you really have no interest in as part of your business.Until there is a unified framework that is actually Write Once, Run and look the same Anywhere as Flex (or Silverlight), there will be a place for them.
MXML (and possibly XAML) are simply a huge relief to work with after dealing with the morass of HTML/JS/CSS dev.I absolutely agree that the mobile market is a BIG issue that needs to be dealt with, with Flex-Flash/Silverlight though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</id>
	<title>Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1245153960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The fundamental issue with the new RIA standards is the lack the of authoring tools. I have got a number of graphically-inclined friends who are never going to write something with HTML5 mainly because there are no tools out there (yet) which come even close what the Adobe authoring tools can do.
</p><p>
Recently, I sat with one of my friends (who's a <a href="http://www.coroflot.com/public/individual\_file.asp?from\_url=true&amp;individual\_id=94452&amp;portfolio\_id=276476&amp;is\_featured=-1&amp;" title="coroflot.com">decent artist</a> [coroflot.com]) and played around with <a href="http://processing.org/" title="processing.org">Processing 1.0</a> [processing.org]. After several minutes of hard work, it just became
abundantly clear that visual thinkers have a lot of trouble expressing what they want algorithmically. The experience was repeated the next time, when he was playing
around with <a href="http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/" title="princeton.edu">chucK</a> [princeton.edu] (yeah, he's a music dude too).
</p><p>
The graphic artist folks will have a lot of trouble using the HTML 5 authoring tools currently available, especially if they're confined to use HTML Canvas programmatically. I've easily gotten upto speed with <a href="http://t3.dotgnu.info/code/flockr-demo/" title="dotgnu.info">canvas</a> [dotgnu.info], but I'm a programmer with no artistic pretensions.
</p><p>
Real adoption of HTML5 - canvas and video &amp; all, will need easy ways to author media<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not write code.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental issue with the new RIA standards is the lack the of authoring tools .
I have got a number of graphically-inclined friends who are never going to write something with HTML5 mainly because there are no tools out there ( yet ) which come even close what the Adobe authoring tools can do .
Recently , I sat with one of my friends ( who 's a decent artist [ coroflot.com ] ) and played around with Processing 1.0 [ processing.org ] .
After several minutes of hard work , it just became abundantly clear that visual thinkers have a lot of trouble expressing what they want algorithmically .
The experience was repeated the next time , when he was playing around with chucK [ princeton.edu ] ( yeah , he 's a music dude too ) .
The graphic artist folks will have a lot of trouble using the HTML 5 authoring tools currently available , especially if they 're confined to use HTML Canvas programmatically .
I 've easily gotten upto speed with canvas [ dotgnu.info ] , but I 'm a programmer with no artistic pretensions .
Real adoption of HTML5 - canvas and video &amp; all , will need easy ways to author media ... not write code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The fundamental issue with the new RIA standards is the lack the of authoring tools.
I have got a number of graphically-inclined friends who are never going to write something with HTML5 mainly because there are no tools out there (yet) which come even close what the Adobe authoring tools can do.
Recently, I sat with one of my friends (who's a decent artist [coroflot.com]) and played around with Processing 1.0 [processing.org].
After several minutes of hard work, it just became
abundantly clear that visual thinkers have a lot of trouble expressing what they want algorithmically.
The experience was repeated the next time, when he was playing
around with chucK [princeton.edu] (yeah, he's a music dude too).
The graphic artist folks will have a lot of trouble using the HTML 5 authoring tools currently available, especially if they're confined to use HTML Canvas programmatically.
I've easily gotten upto speed with canvas [dotgnu.info], but I'm a programmer with no artistic pretensions.
Real adoption of HTML5 - canvas and video &amp; all, will need easy ways to author media ... not write code.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356237</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Chemicalscum</author>
	<datestamp>1245161220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days?" - I did today.  The best chemistry stuff on the web runs on Java applets.  Jmol and Marvinsketch anyone ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days ?
" - I did today .
The best chemistry stuff on the web runs on Java applets .
Jmol and Marvinsketch anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days?
" - I did today.
The best chemistry stuff on the web runs on Java applets.
Jmol and Marvinsketch anyone ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360103</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1245244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the double standard, indeed.</p><p>On the one hand we have a free desktop environment with 3D effects that run well on an Intel GPU. On the other hand, Vista is somehow "ahead". By what measure? It isn't performance, price or familiarity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the double standard , indeed.On the one hand we have a free desktop environment with 3D effects that run well on an Intel GPU .
On the other hand , Vista is somehow " ahead " .
By what measure ?
It is n't performance , price or familiarity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the double standard, indeed.On the one hand we have a free desktop environment with 3D effects that run well on an Intel GPU.
On the other hand, Vista is somehow "ahead".
By what measure?
It isn't performance, price or familiarity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355547</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>obi</author>
	<datestamp>1245156840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now all we need is a webkit plugin for IE8 and below.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only half serious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now all we need is a webkit plugin for IE8 and below .
... only half serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now all we need is a webkit plugin for IE8 and below.
... only half serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355321</id>
	<title>Native Client Now Please!!!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1245155520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to the wonderful video, audio and other enhancements of HTML 5 let's also get Native Clients for powerful apps now please!<br> <br>

<i> <b>Native Client: Using Native Code to Build Compute Intensive Web Applications</b> <br>
Client Track - Brad Chen, David Sehr, Nicholas Fullagar
Some applications require high-performance client-side computation. Native Client is a technology for running native code in web applications, with the goal of maintaining the browser neutrality, OS portability, and safety that people expect from web apps. This talk will give a brief overview of the architecture of Native Client. We'll then look at some specific example applications as well as strategies for how to use native code to handle compute intensive tasks within web applications using SRPC, Shared Memory and NPAPI.</i>
<a href="http://code.google.com/events/io/sessions/NativeClientUsingNativeCode.html" title="google.com">Native Client</a> [google.com].<br> <br>

Native Client will enable me (or you) to have web pages running MY (or your) OWN choice of programming language including a mix of languages as I (you) see fit. True freedom of choice, power and higher speed. Desktop powered apps can finally come to the desktop no matter what language they are written in!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to the wonderful video , audio and other enhancements of HTML 5 let 's also get Native Clients for powerful apps now please !
Native Client : Using Native Code to Build Compute Intensive Web Applications Client Track - Brad Chen , David Sehr , Nicholas Fullagar Some applications require high-performance client-side computation .
Native Client is a technology for running native code in web applications , with the goal of maintaining the browser neutrality , OS portability , and safety that people expect from web apps .
This talk will give a brief overview of the architecture of Native Client .
We 'll then look at some specific example applications as well as strategies for how to use native code to handle compute intensive tasks within web applications using SRPC , Shared Memory and NPAPI .
Native Client [ google.com ] .
Native Client will enable me ( or you ) to have web pages running MY ( or your ) OWN choice of programming language including a mix of languages as I ( you ) see fit .
True freedom of choice , power and higher speed .
Desktop powered apps can finally come to the desktop no matter what language they are written in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to the wonderful video, audio and other enhancements of HTML 5 let's also get Native Clients for powerful apps now please!
Native Client: Using Native Code to Build Compute Intensive Web Applications 
Client Track - Brad Chen, David Sehr, Nicholas Fullagar
Some applications require high-performance client-side computation.
Native Client is a technology for running native code in web applications, with the goal of maintaining the browser neutrality, OS portability, and safety that people expect from web apps.
This talk will give a brief overview of the architecture of Native Client.
We'll then look at some specific example applications as well as strategies for how to use native code to handle compute intensive tasks within web applications using SRPC, Shared Memory and NPAPI.
Native Client [google.com].
Native Client will enable me (or you) to have web pages running MY (or your) OWN choice of programming language including a mix of languages as I (you) see fit.
True freedom of choice, power and higher speed.
Desktop powered apps can finally come to the desktop no matter what language they are written in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356693</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://ostatic.com/blog/64-bit-flash-plugin-released-for-linux-first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //ostatic.com/blog/64-bit-flash-plugin-released-for-linux-first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://ostatic.com/blog/64-bit-flash-plugin-released-for-linux-first</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355499</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The assumption that the IE team is motivated to compete with other browsers on the grounds of features and compatibility is naive. MS if pushing Silverlight through every vector they can think of. They like things the way they are: proprietary. This is the same company that makes Visual Studio, along with compilers for a dozen languages. Do you *really* think they'd have a problem developing a JavaScript engine to compete with V8? Or implement a few additional CSS rules? How about Canvas?</p><p>As long as the numbers of IE usage remain where they are, they are not compelled to push this route of technology. They like things the way they are now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The assumption that the IE team is motivated to compete with other browsers on the grounds of features and compatibility is naive .
MS if pushing Silverlight through every vector they can think of .
They like things the way they are : proprietary .
This is the same company that makes Visual Studio , along with compilers for a dozen languages .
Do you * really * think they 'd have a problem developing a JavaScript engine to compete with V8 ?
Or implement a few additional CSS rules ?
How about Canvas ? As long as the numbers of IE usage remain where they are , they are not compelled to push this route of technology .
They like things the way they are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The assumption that the IE team is motivated to compete with other browsers on the grounds of features and compatibility is naive.
MS if pushing Silverlight through every vector they can think of.
They like things the way they are: proprietary.
This is the same company that makes Visual Studio, along with compilers for a dozen languages.
Do you *really* think they'd have a problem developing a JavaScript engine to compete with V8?
Or implement a few additional CSS rules?
How about Canvas?As long as the numbers of IE usage remain where they are, they are not compelled to push this route of technology.
They like things the way they are now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355677</id>
	<title>Re:What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245157560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 10 year timeframe is for going to REC.  Which means there are two complete interoperable implementations.</p><p>Unlike previous W3C standards, this time they're not going to publish as final it until they have evidence that it can actually be implemented, and by more than one development team.  That's been a major issue with CSS2, for example: the long time CSS2.1 has been taking has been largely about fixing things that were underdefined, contradictory, or just wrong (in the sense of not making any sense) in CSS2 and that were discovered when people went to actually implement the spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 10 year timeframe is for going to REC .
Which means there are two complete interoperable implementations.Unlike previous W3C standards , this time they 're not going to publish as final it until they have evidence that it can actually be implemented , and by more than one development team .
That 's been a major issue with CSS2 , for example : the long time CSS2.1 has been taking has been largely about fixing things that were underdefined , contradictory , or just wrong ( in the sense of not making any sense ) in CSS2 and that were discovered when people went to actually implement the spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 10 year timeframe is for going to REC.
Which means there are two complete interoperable implementations.Unlike previous W3C standards, this time they're not going to publish as final it until they have evidence that it can actually be implemented, and by more than one development team.
That's been a major issue with CSS2, for example: the long time CSS2.1 has been taking has been largely about fixing things that were underdefined, contradictory, or just wrong (in the sense of not making any sense) in CSS2 and that were discovered when people went to actually implement the spec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355325</id>
	<title>We independent developers decide that ...</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245155520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you make it good, and we like it, you'd be surprised how fast proprietary technology gets replaced. look at PHP. many of you who work corporate may not be aware, but PHP dominates the majority of sites that belong to individuals and small businesses now. check elance, rentacoder, etc - you'll find that the demand for php projects at least quadruples anything closest.</p><p>how did it happen ?</p><p>people liked it. it was adequate (then), it was free, it allows you to do anything (now). period. it took off.</p><p>before any of you language nazis come up and start trolling about how you dont like php syntax, how there are more 'elite' languages out there, and how php is 'not a language' etc, i should say - i dont give a flying fuck. neither do millions of people who utilize it and who develop on it. so keep it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you make it good , and we like it , you 'd be surprised how fast proprietary technology gets replaced .
look at PHP .
many of you who work corporate may not be aware , but PHP dominates the majority of sites that belong to individuals and small businesses now .
check elance , rentacoder , etc - you 'll find that the demand for php projects at least quadruples anything closest.how did it happen ? people liked it .
it was adequate ( then ) , it was free , it allows you to do anything ( now ) .
period. it took off.before any of you language nazis come up and start trolling about how you dont like php syntax , how there are more 'elite ' languages out there , and how php is 'not a language ' etc , i should say - i dont give a flying fuck .
neither do millions of people who utilize it and who develop on it .
so keep it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you make it good, and we like it, you'd be surprised how fast proprietary technology gets replaced.
look at PHP.
many of you who work corporate may not be aware, but PHP dominates the majority of sites that belong to individuals and small businesses now.
check elance, rentacoder, etc - you'll find that the demand for php projects at least quadruples anything closest.how did it happen ?people liked it.
it was adequate (then), it was free, it allows you to do anything (now).
period. it took off.before any of you language nazis come up and start trolling about how you dont like php syntax, how there are more 'elite' languages out there, and how php is 'not a language' etc, i should say - i dont give a flying fuck.
neither do millions of people who utilize it and who develop on it.
so keep it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356075</id>
	<title>Isn't search a factor?</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1245160080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One factor I'd think would contribute greatly to the success of one over the others is how well a search provider like Google can reasonably analyze and index the content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One factor I 'd think would contribute greatly to the success of one over the others is how well a search provider like Google can reasonably analyze and index the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One factor I'd think would contribute greatly to the success of one over the others is how well a search provider like Google can reasonably analyze and index the content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</id>
	<title>Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>Virus Hunter</author>
	<datestamp>1245153660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry but I just can't stand developing in Javascript.  Javascript is hands down the most arcane language I find myself developing in.  At this point being locked into a language like Javascript by the standards community seems much more restrictive than what the proprietary plug-ins are offering.  Programming in both Silverlight and Flex has been a liberating experience for me.  When using Silverlight or Flex I'm able to focus on creating an application that satisfies my customer's needs; instead of focusing on the black magic tricks that are so often required when using Javascript and HTML.  At the end of the day it's so obvious that HTML and Javascript were not intended for serious application development.  Not only do Silverlight and Flex offer better programming models they also offer rich support for databinding, and that has simplified so many of my applications.  So unless HTML 5 comes packaged with a better programming language and data binding you can count me out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry but I just ca n't stand developing in Javascript .
Javascript is hands down the most arcane language I find myself developing in .
At this point being locked into a language like Javascript by the standards community seems much more restrictive than what the proprietary plug-ins are offering .
Programming in both Silverlight and Flex has been a liberating experience for me .
When using Silverlight or Flex I 'm able to focus on creating an application that satisfies my customer 's needs ; instead of focusing on the black magic tricks that are so often required when using Javascript and HTML .
At the end of the day it 's so obvious that HTML and Javascript were not intended for serious application development .
Not only do Silverlight and Flex offer better programming models they also offer rich support for databinding , and that has simplified so many of my applications .
So unless HTML 5 comes packaged with a better programming language and data binding you can count me out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry but I just can't stand developing in Javascript.
Javascript is hands down the most arcane language I find myself developing in.
At this point being locked into a language like Javascript by the standards community seems much more restrictive than what the proprietary plug-ins are offering.
Programming in both Silverlight and Flex has been a liberating experience for me.
When using Silverlight or Flex I'm able to focus on creating an application that satisfies my customer's needs; instead of focusing on the black magic tricks that are so often required when using Javascript and HTML.
At the end of the day it's so obvious that HTML and Javascript were not intended for serious application development.
Not only do Silverlight and Flex offer better programming models they also offer rich support for databinding, and that has simplified so many of my applications.
So unless HTML 5 comes packaged with a better programming language and data binding you can count me out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358507</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245269400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization, but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs, i dont call that being involved, instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards, and try to slow down, and break apart the web.</p></div><p>Happened many times, they were members of the Corba consortium and derived DCOM from the technologies there, early they were members of the OpenGL consortium it ended with DirectX 3 being a plain COM based copy of OpenGL, their membership in the W3C consortium has been going on for longer than a decade.</p><p>But to Microsofts defense they behave more nicely. The last stunt they pulled was to rip off SVG and label it under their own name (XAML) incompatible of course, while not supporting the official SVG standard, but that has been several years ago!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization , but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs , i dont call that being involved , instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards , and try to slow down , and break apart the web.Happened many times , they were members of the Corba consortium and derived DCOM from the technologies there , early they were members of the OpenGL consortium it ended with DirectX 3 being a plain COM based copy of OpenGL , their membership in the W3C consortium has been going on for longer than a decade.But to Microsofts defense they behave more nicely .
The last stunt they pulled was to rip off SVG and label it under their own name ( XAML ) incompatible of course , while not supporting the official SVG standard , but that has been several years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft might be part of the w3 organization, but none of their browsers support any of the HTML5 specs, i dont call that being involved, instead they have specifically decided not to support these standards, and try to slow down, and break apart the web.Happened many times, they were members of the Corba consortium and derived DCOM from the technologies there, early they were members of the OpenGL consortium it ended with DirectX 3 being a plain COM based copy of OpenGL, their membership in the W3C consortium has been going on for longer than a decade.But to Microsofts defense they behave more nicely.
The last stunt they pulled was to rip off SVG and label it under their own name (XAML) incompatible of course, while not supporting the official SVG standard, but that has been several years ago!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</id>
	<title>well...</title>
	<author>evil\_marty</author>
	<datestamp>1245153840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is the beginning of the no-plugins trend and I for one think its about time. Sure some 98\% of people have flash installed, silverlight much much less and java (well I tend to steer away from that as much as possible, besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days?) but the problem we are seeing is that single vendors take there time to migrate to other platforms, and usually then they lack features and what nots. Look at flash, it isn't even available for the iphone and it's linux support is very limited (alpha still?) not to mention lacking 64bit in windows, fucking windows! If flash was an open platform then more external resources can be used to address these situations but then this is where html5 goes one step further, instead of making it a plugin for everyone to download why not just make it part of the browser and save the hassle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the beginning of the no-plugins trend and I for one think its about time .
Sure some 98 \ % of people have flash installed , silverlight much much less and java ( well I tend to steer away from that as much as possible , besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days ?
) but the problem we are seeing is that single vendors take there time to migrate to other platforms , and usually then they lack features and what nots .
Look at flash , it is n't even available for the iphone and it 's linux support is very limited ( alpha still ?
) not to mention lacking 64bit in windows , fucking windows !
If flash was an open platform then more external resources can be used to address these situations but then this is where html5 goes one step further , instead of making it a plugin for everyone to download why not just make it part of the browser and save the hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the beginning of the no-plugins trend and I for one think its about time.
Sure some 98\% of people have flash installed, silverlight much much less and java (well I tend to steer away from that as much as possible, besides when was the last time anyone ran an applet these days?
) but the problem we are seeing is that single vendors take there time to migrate to other platforms, and usually then they lack features and what nots.
Look at flash, it isn't even available for the iphone and it's linux support is very limited (alpha still?
) not to mention lacking 64bit in windows, fucking windows!
If flash was an open platform then more external resources can be used to address these situations but then this is where html5 goes one step further, instead of making it a plugin for everyone to download why not just make it part of the browser and save the hassle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</id>
	<title>HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245153540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML5 is incredibly awesome.  I've been building some apps that run only in safari and the things you can do in so very little code make Flash and Silverlight look like anemic.  What people don't realize is that HTML5 means tools to author HTML5 in HTML5.

I've done a simple Object Oriented Javascript programming interface that currently only runs in Safari4 (only one with sufficient HTML5 support), and it is amazing what you can get done in 500 lines of code.  Using the framework at <a href="http://www.dloh.org/" title="dloh.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.dloh.org/</a> [dloh.org] I built a graphing app by adding 2 lines of Javascript.  A simple movie player is 5 lines of javascript.  It takes stupidly little code to make compelling apps using the right tools and HTML5.

Furthermore, more and more phones are supporting the WebKit framework.  Qualcomm is recruiting a team to port webkit, so we'll soon see it on Brew phones.  Iphone runs it.  Android phones run it.  And even if you run Opera, once again you're getting decent HTML5 support on your phone.

This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 is incredibly awesome .
I 've been building some apps that run only in safari and the things you can do in so very little code make Flash and Silverlight look like anemic .
What people do n't realize is that HTML5 means tools to author HTML5 in HTML5 .
I 've done a simple Object Oriented Javascript programming interface that currently only runs in Safari4 ( only one with sufficient HTML5 support ) , and it is amazing what you can get done in 500 lines of code .
Using the framework at http : //www.dloh.org/ [ dloh.org ] I built a graphing app by adding 2 lines of Javascript .
A simple movie player is 5 lines of javascript .
It takes stupidly little code to make compelling apps using the right tools and HTML5 .
Furthermore , more and more phones are supporting the WebKit framework .
Qualcomm is recruiting a team to port webkit , so we 'll soon see it on Brew phones .
Iphone runs it .
Android phones run it .
And even if you run Opera , once again you 're getting decent HTML5 support on your phone .
This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 is incredibly awesome.
I've been building some apps that run only in safari and the things you can do in so very little code make Flash and Silverlight look like anemic.
What people don't realize is that HTML5 means tools to author HTML5 in HTML5.
I've done a simple Object Oriented Javascript programming interface that currently only runs in Safari4 (only one with sufficient HTML5 support), and it is amazing what you can get done in 500 lines of code.
Using the framework at http://www.dloh.org/ [dloh.org] I built a graphing app by adding 2 lines of Javascript.
A simple movie player is 5 lines of javascript.
It takes stupidly little code to make compelling apps using the right tools and HTML5.
Furthermore, more and more phones are supporting the WebKit framework.
Qualcomm is recruiting a team to port webkit, so we'll soon see it on Brew phones.
Iphone runs it.
Android phones run it.
And even if you run Opera, once again you're getting decent HTML5 support on your phone.
This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358867</id>
	<title>Bring HTML5 and a Good Browser</title>
	<author>Delifisek</author>
	<datestamp>1245230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PBBG's will fix the problem.</p><p>When we begin to design advanced UI's which required HTML5 people begin to change their browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PBBG 's will fix the problem.When we begin to design advanced UI 's which required HTML5 people begin to change their browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PBBG's will fix the problem.When we begin to design advanced UI's which required HTML5 people begin to change their browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28366977</id>
	<title>Re:If MS chooses, HTML5+CSS3 is 10 years out.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245236520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years, then HTML5 + CSS3 is, to all intents and purposes, 10 years out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Assuming environments on which Microsoft browsers are dominant remain the dominant browser environments for that 10 years.</p><p>OTOH, if non-Windows smartphones and similar mobile devices continue to proliferate, Microsoft won't be able to use its desktop OS monopoly and consequent "default choice" status among desktop browsers to dictate <i>de facto</i> web standards, and will be forced to either adapt or risk losing its position on the desktop to vendors that do keep up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years , then HTML5 + CSS3 is , to all intents and purposes , 10 years out.Assuming environments on which Microsoft browsers are dominant remain the dominant browser environments for that 10 years.OTOH , if non-Windows smartphones and similar mobile devices continue to proliferate , Microsoft wo n't be able to use its desktop OS monopoly and consequent " default choice " status among desktop browsers to dictate de facto web standards , and will be forced to either adapt or risk losing its position on the desktop to vendors that do keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft choose to not implement HTML5 + CSS3 for 10 years, then HTML5 + CSS3 is, to all intents and purposes, 10 years out.Assuming environments on which Microsoft browsers are dominant remain the dominant browser environments for that 10 years.OTOH, if non-Windows smartphones and similar mobile devices continue to proliferate, Microsoft won't be able to use its desktop OS monopoly and consequent "default choice" status among desktop browsers to dictate de facto web standards, and will be forced to either adapt or risk losing its position on the desktop to vendors that do keep up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359355</id>
	<title>Re:Just ran a small test for HTML 5...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's cool, resembles wolfenstein 3d...<br>Works nicely on Safari 4 (default version supplied by Apple update), seems to work just fine on highest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's cool , resembles wolfenstein 3d...Works nicely on Safari 4 ( default version supplied by Apple update ) , seems to work just fine on highest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's cool, resembles wolfenstein 3d...Works nicely on Safari 4 (default version supplied by Apple update), seems to work just fine on highest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355713</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. A fun little app I built. Not much code at all and no compiling.</p><p>http://blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
A fun little app I built .
Not much code at all and no compiling.http : //blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
A fun little app I built.
Not much code at all and no compiling.http://blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356177</id>
	<title>Re:What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure about Opera, but I'd guess they're already working on it.</p></div><p>Yes, it's strange, huh? Anne van Kesteren is quite active in HTML5 but I don't see much happening in Opera itself. Opera is the last serious browser without &lt;video&gt; support. There was an experimental video-enabled build last year, but it's broken with the current spec, and there's no sign of video in Opera 10.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about Opera , but I 'd guess they 're already working on it.Yes , it 's strange , huh ?
Anne van Kesteren is quite active in HTML5 but I do n't see much happening in Opera itself .
Opera is the last serious browser without support .
There was an experimental video-enabled build last year , but it 's broken with the current spec , and there 's no sign of video in Opera 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about Opera, but I'd guess they're already working on it.Yes, it's strange, huh?
Anne van Kesteren is quite active in HTML5 but I don't see much happening in Opera itself.
Opera is the last serious browser without  support.
There was an experimental video-enabled build last year, but it's broken with the current spec, and there's no sign of video in Opera 10.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356753</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>I'm a UI designer with a little programming knowledge so I can see both sides to some extent. Our company has been using Silverlight since the earliest betas and I firmly believe that, for the moment at least, this technology has the most promise for web 2.0 applications. Yes, it's proprietary, yes, it's Microsoft, yes it's not widely used yet, but as a designer, the tools provided, such as Expression Blend, are far above and beyond anything I've used to create flash or HTML content, and I believe this will be the deciding factor.</p><p>Look at Flash and Actionscript. While it's come a long way, back in the day programmers would go to great length to develop flash applications \_because all their artists used flash\_.</p><p>For the record I'm not normally a M$ supporter and while I'd choose the alternative to 99\% of their applications, I believe in judging each by it's merits, rather than it's maker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.I 'm a UI designer with a little programming knowledge so I can see both sides to some extent .
Our company has been using Silverlight since the earliest betas and I firmly believe that , for the moment at least , this technology has the most promise for web 2.0 applications .
Yes , it 's proprietary , yes , it 's Microsoft , yes it 's not widely used yet , but as a designer , the tools provided , such as Expression Blend , are far above and beyond anything I 've used to create flash or HTML content , and I believe this will be the deciding factor.Look at Flash and Actionscript .
While it 's come a long way , back in the day programmers would go to great length to develop flash applications \ _because all their artists used flash \ _.For the record I 'm not normally a M $ supporter and while I 'd choose the alternative to 99 \ % of their applications , I believe in judging each by it 's merits , rather than it 's maker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.I'm a UI designer with a little programming knowledge so I can see both sides to some extent.
Our company has been using Silverlight since the earliest betas and I firmly believe that, for the moment at least, this technology has the most promise for web 2.0 applications.
Yes, it's proprietary, yes, it's Microsoft, yes it's not widely used yet, but as a designer, the tools provided, such as Expression Blend, are far above and beyond anything I've used to create flash or HTML content, and I believe this will be the deciding factor.Look at Flash and Actionscript.
While it's come a long way, back in the day programmers would go to great length to develop flash applications \_because all their artists used flash\_.For the record I'm not normally a M$ supporter and while I'd choose the alternative to 99\% of their applications, I believe in judging each by it's merits, rather than it's maker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360717</id>
	<title>Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>radarsat1</author>
	<datestamp>1245249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course its true that many, perhaps most, artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language, and figuring out how to design algorithms. I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place, but perhaps that's also a direct result of not being good at it.</p><p>In any case, you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \_do\_ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK. They are perhaps a rare breed, but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.</p><p>Also, it's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along, he used to use Lisp! And he is definitely not a programmer, so I was quite surprised.</p><p>Mind you, web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time, so they're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript, and then perhaps learn more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course its true that many , perhaps most , artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language , and figuring out how to design algorithms .
I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place , but perhaps that 's also a direct result of not being good at it.In any case , you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \ _do \ _ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK .
They are perhaps a rare breed , but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.Also , it 's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along , he used to use Lisp !
And he is definitely not a programmer , so I was quite surprised.Mind you , web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time , so they 're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript , and then perhaps learn more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course its true that many, perhaps most, artists have difficulty expressing themselves in a formal language, and figuring out how to design algorithms.
I would guess this has a lot to do with not having done much programming in the first place, but perhaps that's also a direct result of not being good at it.In any case, you have to also admit that there does exist quite a large community of artists who \_do\_ enjoy expressing themselves with languages like Processing and ChucK.
They are perhaps a rare breed, but I would say that artists who know how to cross this gap are an interesting niche.Also, it's not so uncommon.. a composer I know told me that before Max/MSP came along, he used to use Lisp!
And he is definitely not a programmer, so I was quite surprised.Mind you, web designers can often be part of this group since they have to deal with things like HTML and CSS all the time, so they're more likely to lean towards wanting to figure out Javascript, and then perhaps learn more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355343</id>
	<title>Re:What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245155640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both Mozilla and Apple are already working on HTML5 and CSS3 support.  I'm not sure about Opera, but I'd guess they're already working on it.  Microsoft will probably drag their fee (as always), but you'll see support in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome well before that "10 year" timeframe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Mozilla and Apple are already working on HTML5 and CSS3 support .
I 'm not sure about Opera , but I 'd guess they 're already working on it .
Microsoft will probably drag their fee ( as always ) , but you 'll see support in Firefox , Safari , and Chrome well before that " 10 year " timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Mozilla and Apple are already working on HTML5 and CSS3 support.
I'm not sure about Opera, but I'd guess they're already working on it.
Microsoft will probably drag their fee (as always), but you'll see support in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome well before that "10 year" timeframe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358137</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5, with canvas, is fantastic</title>
	<author>Pascal Sartoretti</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>For those projects that don't care about IE support, HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web. For the rest, business as usual for some time to come I'm afraid.</i>
<br> <br>
Who can afford to not care about IE? On the desktop, nobody. On the mobile web (smartphones) however, IE is not relevant. And guess where the future is headed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those projects that do n't care about IE support , HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web .
For the rest , business as usual for some time to come I 'm afraid .
Who can afford to not care about IE ?
On the desktop , nobody .
On the mobile web ( smartphones ) however , IE is not relevant .
And guess where the future is headed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those projects that don't care about IE support, HTML5 canvas/video/audio is a fantastic leap forward for the web.
For the rest, business as usual for some time to come I'm afraid.
Who can afford to not care about IE?
On the desktop, nobody.
On the mobile web (smartphones) however, IE is not relevant.
And guess where the future is headed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356439</id>
	<title>They might eat their lunches, but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they drink their milkshake?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they drink their milkshake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they drink their milkshake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358435</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe brought this on themselves</title>
	<author>WillKemp</author>
	<datestamp>1245182280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In order to control Flash, you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.</p></div></blockquote><p>Millions of web browsers <em>do</em> do exactly that - with flashblock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to control Flash , you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.Millions of web browsers do do exactly that - with flashblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to control Flash, you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.Millions of web browsers do do exactly that - with flashblock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355639</id>
	<title>Web standards have a horrible past...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're currently in the process of taking our large open source web-based application and re-writing the entire front-end in Flex.</p><p>We just got tired of the cross-browser headaches, especially with javascript/layout. As more and more browsers get released into the wild we found ourselves spending a large percentage of time just testing and working around issues with each browser rather then making real progress with the application itself.</p><p>Moving to Flex essentially eliminates any cross-browser issues for us, not to mention all the additional goodies it offers.</p><p>Browsers haven't implemented the standards that have been out for the last 10 years properly, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to get it right anytime in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're currently in the process of taking our large open source web-based application and re-writing the entire front-end in Flex.We just got tired of the cross-browser headaches , especially with javascript/layout .
As more and more browsers get released into the wild we found ourselves spending a large percentage of time just testing and working around issues with each browser rather then making real progress with the application itself.Moving to Flex essentially eliminates any cross-browser issues for us , not to mention all the additional goodies it offers.Browsers have n't implemented the standards that have been out for the last 10 years properly , I 'm not holding my breath waiting for them to get it right anytime in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're currently in the process of taking our large open source web-based application and re-writing the entire front-end in Flex.We just got tired of the cross-browser headaches, especially with javascript/layout.
As more and more browsers get released into the wild we found ourselves spending a large percentage of time just testing and working around issues with each browser rather then making real progress with the application itself.Moving to Flex essentially eliminates any cross-browser issues for us, not to mention all the additional goodies it offers.Browsers haven't implemented the standards that have been out for the last 10 years properly, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to get it right anytime in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356097</id>
	<title>WebKit vs. IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the past two years, I've been telling everyone the new browser war is between IE and WebKit. WebKit has become the default platform for the mobile browser market (iPhone using Safari and Android and Palm using their version). One of the big reasons Apple started WebKit was to keep the browsing platform out of the hands of a single vendor. It's not that Apple doesn't like proprietary technology. It's that they don't like proprietary technology that they depend upon and don't control.</p><p>The battle for HTML 5 vs. Silverlight vs. Flash will be on the mobile platform. It's easy for Silverlight and Adobe to create a desktop application that work with 90\% of the desktops (and a bit more work to get another 9\%). However, the world is changing. Adobe and Microsoft can't create Silverlight and Flash clients for every single possible mobile platform. The trick is to get enough HTML 5 clients out there that it'll be worth it for developers to learn HTML 5. If enough developers pick up HTML 5, companies will make IDEs for HTML 5.</p><p>If that happens, Flash and Silverlight will go away. The other possibility is that Apple will buy Adobe and open source Flash. Apple loves open source standards because it means that they'll be able to sell all the neat gadgets that work with these standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the past two years , I 've been telling everyone the new browser war is between IE and WebKit .
WebKit has become the default platform for the mobile browser market ( iPhone using Safari and Android and Palm using their version ) .
One of the big reasons Apple started WebKit was to keep the browsing platform out of the hands of a single vendor .
It 's not that Apple does n't like proprietary technology .
It 's that they do n't like proprietary technology that they depend upon and do n't control.The battle for HTML 5 vs. Silverlight vs. Flash will be on the mobile platform .
It 's easy for Silverlight and Adobe to create a desktop application that work with 90 \ % of the desktops ( and a bit more work to get another 9 \ % ) .
However , the world is changing .
Adobe and Microsoft ca n't create Silverlight and Flash clients for every single possible mobile platform .
The trick is to get enough HTML 5 clients out there that it 'll be worth it for developers to learn HTML 5 .
If enough developers pick up HTML 5 , companies will make IDEs for HTML 5.If that happens , Flash and Silverlight will go away .
The other possibility is that Apple will buy Adobe and open source Flash .
Apple loves open source standards because it means that they 'll be able to sell all the neat gadgets that work with these standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the past two years, I've been telling everyone the new browser war is between IE and WebKit.
WebKit has become the default platform for the mobile browser market (iPhone using Safari and Android and Palm using their version).
One of the big reasons Apple started WebKit was to keep the browsing platform out of the hands of a single vendor.
It's not that Apple doesn't like proprietary technology.
It's that they don't like proprietary technology that they depend upon and don't control.The battle for HTML 5 vs. Silverlight vs. Flash will be on the mobile platform.
It's easy for Silverlight and Adobe to create a desktop application that work with 90\% of the desktops (and a bit more work to get another 9\%).
However, the world is changing.
Adobe and Microsoft can't create Silverlight and Flash clients for every single possible mobile platform.
The trick is to get enough HTML 5 clients out there that it'll be worth it for developers to learn HTML 5.
If enough developers pick up HTML 5, companies will make IDEs for HTML 5.If that happens, Flash and Silverlight will go away.
The other possibility is that Apple will buy Adobe and open source Flash.
Apple loves open source standards because it means that they'll be able to sell all the neat gadgets that work with these standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357259</id>
	<title>Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245169200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if you know this, but with the latest release of Flash and ActionScript3, you have to be a coder to get ANYTHING done.</p><p>If you want pure linear animation, Flash still works great in the hands of designers, but the second you add a replay button, you now need to start coding.</p><p>Adobe shot themselves in the foot by pushing flash out of the hands of designers, taking away a huge advantage they had against HTML5.</p><p><a href="http://blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm" title="blueboxsw.com">http://blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm</a> [blueboxsw.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if you know this , but with the latest release of Flash and ActionScript3 , you have to be a coder to get ANYTHING done.If you want pure linear animation , Flash still works great in the hands of designers , but the second you add a replay button , you now need to start coding.Adobe shot themselves in the foot by pushing flash out of the hands of designers , taking away a huge advantage they had against HTML5.http : //blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm [ blueboxsw.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if you know this, but with the latest release of Flash and ActionScript3, you have to be a coder to get ANYTHING done.If you want pure linear animation, Flash still works great in the hands of designers, but the second you add a replay button, you now need to start coding.Adobe shot themselves in the foot by pushing flash out of the hands of designers, taking away a huge advantage they had against HTML5.http://blueboxsw.com/jktest/index10.cfm [blueboxsw.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355797</id>
	<title>mod 3o3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>outst8ips our chances been looking for! Steadily fucking taken over by BSDI</htmltext>
<tokenext>outst8ips our chances been looking for !
Steadily fucking taken over by BSDI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>outst8ips our chances been looking for!
Steadily fucking taken over by BSDI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355931</id>
	<title>My irony meter just went off the scale.</title>
	<author>mad.frog</author>
	<datestamp>1245159060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been,' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee</i></p><p>Yeah. It would be terrible if a major development platform (HTML5) was effectively controlled by a single person (Ian Hickson).</p><p>Oh, wait... <i> <b>it already is</b> </i>.</p><p><a href="http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a terrible step backward if humanity 's major development platform [ the Web ] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been, ' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson , a Google employeeYeah .
It would be terrible if a major development platform ( HTML5 ) was effectively controlled by a single person ( Ian Hickson ) .Oh , wait... it already is .http : //lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been,' says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employeeYeah.
It would be terrible if a major development platform (HTML5) was effectively controlled by a single person (Ian Hickson).Oh, wait...  it already is .http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360025</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1245244500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize Javascript and Actionscript (that Flex uses) are the *same* language?</p><p>And if Javascript is the most arcane programming language you've ever used, you really know nothing of programming languages, I'm afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize Javascript and Actionscript ( that Flex uses ) are the * same * language ? And if Javascript is the most arcane programming language you 've ever used , you really know nothing of programming languages , I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize Javascript and Actionscript (that Flex uses) are the *same* language?And if Javascript is the most arcane programming language you've ever used, you really know nothing of programming languages, I'm afraid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360061</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Browser incompatibilities are not the fault of javascript. And no, it's not Java or C and that's <a href="http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html" title="crockford.com" rel="nofollow">a good thing</a> [crockford.com].

Get yourself a <a href="http://jquery.com/" title="jquery.com" rel="nofollow">javascript library</a> [jquery.com] and quit complaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Browser incompatibilities are not the fault of javascript .
And no , it 's not Java or C and that 's a good thing [ crockford.com ] .
Get yourself a javascript library [ jquery.com ] and quit complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Browser incompatibilities are not the fault of javascript.
And no, it's not Java or C and that's a good thing [crockford.com].
Get yourself a javascript library [jquery.com] and quit complaining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003</id>
	<title>Adobe brought this on themselves</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1245153780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had Adobe not steadfastly refused to put any end user controls or setting in Flash no one would have bothered to develop alternatives.</p><p>But because they wanted to cater to the jumping monkey segment of the web advertising world, they stonewalled every request for end-user controls, such as no looping, no animation, no sound, etc.</p><p>Besides the fact that it is bloatware, its just end user un-friendly.</p><p>In order to control Flash, you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.</p><p>Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls, such as animate only while cursor hovers, sound off till I say so,  etc.</p><p>Bring on HTML5.<br>This is a market Adobe deserves to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had Adobe not steadfastly refused to put any end user controls or setting in Flash no one would have bothered to develop alternatives.But because they wanted to cater to the jumping monkey segment of the web advertising world , they stonewalled every request for end-user controls , such as no looping , no animation , no sound , etc.Besides the fact that it is bloatware , its just end user un-friendly.In order to control Flash , you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls , such as animate only while cursor hovers , sound off till I say so , etc.Bring on HTML5.This is a market Adobe deserves to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had Adobe not steadfastly refused to put any end user controls or setting in Flash no one would have bothered to develop alternatives.But because they wanted to cater to the jumping monkey segment of the web advertising world, they stonewalled every request for end-user controls, such as no looping, no animation, no sound, etc.Besides the fact that it is bloatware, its just end user un-friendly.In order to control Flash, you needed to kill Flash and millions of web browsers would like to do exactly that.Being an open standard HTML5 is open for development of end-user controls, such as animate only while cursor hovers, sound off till I say so,  etc.Bring on HTML5.This is a market Adobe deserves to lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357039</id>
	<title>RIA RIA RIA RIA</title>
	<author>gumpish</author>
	<datestamp>1245167100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see how many times we can say "RIA" in the summary and top rated comments without saying what the acronym is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see how many times we can say " RIA " in the summary and top rated comments without saying what the acronym is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see how many times we can say "RIA" in the summary and top rated comments without saying what the acronym is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358573</id>
	<title>HTML5 audio/video will be an epic fail</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1245270120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For several reasons:</p><p>1. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about it. Therefore enterprise users won't give a shit.</p><p>2. Even if Microsoft does give a shit, neither Apple nor Microsoft will support Ogg Theora. Therefore Linux is SOL again.</p><p>3. Apply #1 and 2 to audio standards as well. No common, open, royalty free, pre-installed standard across all platforms == epic fail.</p><p>The main power of Flash right now is that once you install the plugin, you might as well forget all that BS about paying for codecs on all three major platforms. It's all in there. It's convenient. It's sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For several reasons : 1 .
Microsoft does n't give a shit about it .
Therefore enterprise users wo n't give a shit.2 .
Even if Microsoft does give a shit , neither Apple nor Microsoft will support Ogg Theora .
Therefore Linux is SOL again.3 .
Apply # 1 and 2 to audio standards as well .
No common , open , royalty free , pre-installed standard across all platforms = = epic fail.The main power of Flash right now is that once you install the plugin , you might as well forget all that BS about paying for codecs on all three major platforms .
It 's all in there .
It 's convenient .
It 's sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For several reasons:1.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about it.
Therefore enterprise users won't give a shit.2.
Even if Microsoft does give a shit, neither Apple nor Microsoft will support Ogg Theora.
Therefore Linux is SOL again.3.
Apply #1 and 2 to audio standards as well.
No common, open, royalty free, pre-installed standard across all platforms == epic fail.The main power of Flash right now is that once you install the plugin, you might as well forget all that BS about paying for codecs on all three major platforms.
It's all in there.
It's convenient.
It's sufficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357301</id>
	<title>Re:Adobe brought this on themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245169620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what, exactly, is there to prevent people from authoring "punch the monkey" controls in HTML5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what , exactly , is there to prevent people from authoring " punch the monkey " controls in HTML5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what, exactly, is there to prevent people from authoring "punch the monkey" controls in HTML5?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357861</id>
	<title>For Revolution To Succeed, It's The Idea, Stupid</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1245176040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the fact that despite the mighty MSFT with its VBScript/JScript/.NET, Sun's Java and JavaFX, and Adobe's Flash and ActionScript in combined assult on common, non-plug-in, web standards, JavaScript simply refuses to die and is more popular than ever. Despite the lack of dedicated tools support from major vendors. It shows the majority of web users simply just want a free web browser that works without fuss.

How often do you actually hear the majority commenters rave about a total Flash website? How about the other way around? The popularity of Flash has only 2 main reasons - 1) Stream videos (mainly porn) in a way the users cannot download; 2) flashy banner ads only the designers and advertisers themselves love. The vendor tools that supposedly make it *EASY* to develop only make it easy to develop crap.

The danger of vendor plug-in is this - if you can view the web and vendor specific content with just the vendor plug-in, why do you need the web browser? Don't let them cripple the web browser or hinder its evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the fact that despite the mighty MSFT with its VBScript/JScript/.NET , Sun 's Java and JavaFX , and Adobe 's Flash and ActionScript in combined assult on common , non-plug-in , web standards , JavaScript simply refuses to die and is more popular than ever .
Despite the lack of dedicated tools support from major vendors .
It shows the majority of web users simply just want a free web browser that works without fuss .
How often do you actually hear the majority commenters rave about a total Flash website ?
How about the other way around ?
The popularity of Flash has only 2 main reasons - 1 ) Stream videos ( mainly porn ) in a way the users can not download ; 2 ) flashy banner ads only the designers and advertisers themselves love .
The vendor tools that supposedly make it * EASY * to develop only make it easy to develop crap .
The danger of vendor plug-in is this - if you can view the web and vendor specific content with just the vendor plug-in , why do you need the web browser ?
Do n't let them cripple the web browser or hinder its evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the fact that despite the mighty MSFT with its VBScript/JScript/.NET, Sun's Java and JavaFX, and Adobe's Flash and ActionScript in combined assult on common, non-plug-in, web standards, JavaScript simply refuses to die and is more popular than ever.
Despite the lack of dedicated tools support from major vendors.
It shows the majority of web users simply just want a free web browser that works without fuss.
How often do you actually hear the majority commenters rave about a total Flash website?
How about the other way around?
The popularity of Flash has only 2 main reasons - 1) Stream videos (mainly porn) in a way the users cannot download; 2) flashy banner ads only the designers and advertisers themselves love.
The vendor tools that supposedly make it *EASY* to develop only make it easy to develop crap.
The danger of vendor plug-in is this - if you can view the web and vendor specific content with just the vendor plug-in, why do you need the web browser?
Don't let them cripple the web browser or hinder its evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355099</id>
	<title>Re:Need good tools</title>
	<author>StreetStealth</author>
	<datestamp>1245154380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that would get any of the above-mentioned companies on board would be for HTML 5 to take off to such a degree that they feel their authoring environments are threatened enough that they need to adapt.</p><p>And as arguably their support would be instrumental in HTML5 taking off in the dynamic browser-based media market, it's pretty much a catch-22.</p><p>Unless some new player lands on the scene with a well-designed and powerful authoring environment built from the ground up for HTML 5. Then things could get really interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that would get any of the above-mentioned companies on board would be for HTML 5 to take off to such a degree that they feel their authoring environments are threatened enough that they need to adapt.And as arguably their support would be instrumental in HTML5 taking off in the dynamic browser-based media market , it 's pretty much a catch-22.Unless some new player lands on the scene with a well-designed and powerful authoring environment built from the ground up for HTML 5 .
Then things could get really interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that would get any of the above-mentioned companies on board would be for HTML 5 to take off to such a degree that they feel their authoring environments are threatened enough that they need to adapt.And as arguably their support would be instrumental in HTML5 taking off in the dynamic browser-based media market, it's pretty much a catch-22.Unless some new player lands on the scene with a well-designed and powerful authoring environment built from the ground up for HTML 5.
Then things could get really interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356257</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1245161460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason you have to use "tricks" as you call them, is because some browsers have not implemented the standards properly. The reason you don't have to deal with that in Flex and Silverlight is because they are proprietary environments running within the browser. These plug-ins handle the rendering, not the browser. I understand what you are saying, and I agree that JavaScript could be more robust, but I think the reason it's not there now is because a few companies (or one) have been holding it back for awhile. It's been a good 10 years since we've seen major advances in HTML and Javscript. I'm excited that there's a chance that people are finally starting to take notice again. Hopefully this means that it will start to evolve more and perhaps take care of some of your concerns.</p><p>BTW: Have you checked out <a href="http://www.sproutcore.com/" title="sproutcore.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sproutcore.com/</a> [sproutcore.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason you have to use " tricks " as you call them , is because some browsers have not implemented the standards properly .
The reason you do n't have to deal with that in Flex and Silverlight is because they are proprietary environments running within the browser .
These plug-ins handle the rendering , not the browser .
I understand what you are saying , and I agree that JavaScript could be more robust , but I think the reason it 's not there now is because a few companies ( or one ) have been holding it back for awhile .
It 's been a good 10 years since we 've seen major advances in HTML and Javscript .
I 'm excited that there 's a chance that people are finally starting to take notice again .
Hopefully this means that it will start to evolve more and perhaps take care of some of your concerns.BTW : Have you checked out http : //www.sproutcore.com/ [ sproutcore.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason you have to use "tricks" as you call them, is because some browsers have not implemented the standards properly.
The reason you don't have to deal with that in Flex and Silverlight is because they are proprietary environments running within the browser.
These plug-ins handle the rendering, not the browser.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that JavaScript could be more robust, but I think the reason it's not there now is because a few companies (or one) have been holding it back for awhile.
It's been a good 10 years since we've seen major advances in HTML and Javscript.
I'm excited that there's a chance that people are finally starting to take notice again.
Hopefully this means that it will start to evolve more and perhaps take care of some of your concerns.BTW: Have you checked out http://www.sproutcore.com/ [sproutcore.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355151</id>
	<title>RIAs have common runtimes, browsers do not</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245154560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem with HTML5/JavaScript/CSS is that each browser has quirky behaviours that need to be tested.   Even if Internet Explorer no longer existed, developers would have to test against Firefox, Safari, Chrome and maybe Opera.  An example of a quirk is Safari not recognizing table element widths in percentages. A Flash developer tests against one Flash runtime, same with a Silverlight developer and a JavaFX developer.</p><p>Adobe released a beta of a multiple browser runtime testing tool, but it's apparently very flawed.</p><p>So until the above problems are solved, many RIA developers will simply use Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX, instead of coding for a hodge-podge of different browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with HTML5/JavaScript/CSS is that each browser has quirky behaviours that need to be tested .
Even if Internet Explorer no longer existed , developers would have to test against Firefox , Safari , Chrome and maybe Opera .
An example of a quirk is Safari not recognizing table element widths in percentages .
A Flash developer tests against one Flash runtime , same with a Silverlight developer and a JavaFX developer.Adobe released a beta of a multiple browser runtime testing tool , but it 's apparently very flawed.So until the above problems are solved , many RIA developers will simply use Flex , Silverlight or JavaFX , instead of coding for a hodge-podge of different browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with HTML5/JavaScript/CSS is that each browser has quirky behaviours that need to be tested.
Even if Internet Explorer no longer existed, developers would have to test against Firefox, Safari, Chrome and maybe Opera.
An example of a quirk is Safari not recognizing table element widths in percentages.
A Flash developer tests against one Flash runtime, same with a Silverlight developer and a JavaFX developer.Adobe released a beta of a multiple browser runtime testing tool, but it's apparently very flawed.So until the above problems are solved, many RIA developers will simply use Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX, instead of coding for a hodge-podge of different browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356751</id>
	<title>Re:Developers, developers ... and authoring tools</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1245164700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if the HTML 5 RIA authoring tools are Silverlight, JavaFX or Flash with a suitable export format? Likely they would support more proprietary and richer content in their own formats.
How about Microsoft implementing HTML 5 RIA compatibility mode in Silverlight and bundling that with the browser with hopes the developer will go for the richer proprietary Silverlight experience. Something has to render the RIA content. Just some thoughts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the HTML 5 RIA authoring tools are Silverlight , JavaFX or Flash with a suitable export format ?
Likely they would support more proprietary and richer content in their own formats .
How about Microsoft implementing HTML 5 RIA compatibility mode in Silverlight and bundling that with the browser with hopes the developer will go for the richer proprietary Silverlight experience .
Something has to render the RIA content .
Just some thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the HTML 5 RIA authoring tools are Silverlight, JavaFX or Flash with a suitable export format?
Likely they would support more proprietary and richer content in their own formats.
How about Microsoft implementing HTML 5 RIA compatibility mode in Silverlight and bundling that with the browser with hopes the developer will go for the richer proprietary Silverlight experience.
Something has to render the RIA content.
Just some thoughts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355319</id>
	<title>Hope WIN7 catches on</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1245155520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With older browsers all that was needed was a plugin. If the user/corporation is required to update the browser, good luck.<p>
How many organizations are still use IE6? Too many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With older browsers all that was needed was a plugin .
If the user/corporation is required to update the browser , good luck .
How many organizations are still use IE6 ?
Too many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With older browsers all that was needed was a plugin.
If the user/corporation is required to update the browser, good luck.
How many organizations are still use IE6?
Too many.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360893</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 is awesome</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1245250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use.</p></div></blockquote><p>yet it doesn't work on any of the browsers in stalled on my computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use.yet it does n't work on any of the browsers in stalled on my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is game changing technology because it runs on the devices that most of the 6 billion people on the planet actually use.yet it doesn't work on any of the browsers in stalled on my computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357431</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who uses Java applets?  I know that Facebook uses one for their image uploads, and last I heard they were pretty big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who uses Java applets ?
I know that Facebook uses one for their image uploads , and last I heard they were pretty big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who uses Java applets?
I know that Facebook uses one for their image uploads, and last I heard they were pretty big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358537</id>
	<title>Re:What about the browsers?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245269820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets leave the standards aside, RIA development on browsers has a bigger problem when it comes to HTML. And HTML5 does not take care of it.<br>Lets have a look, usually a RIA application is a self contained application with a load of widgets which in itself are self contained and only via dedicated contracts influencable, the widgets themselves communicate over messages (events)</p><p>Now what do we have in the WEB a huge singleton called the DOM tree, normally not bad in itself, but it has no subtree isolation constructs so we cannot really get any isolation, the control language javascript, does not provide that feature either.<br>The only thing really more or less there is the event system, but even that does not work unified over all browsers!</p><p>This is one of the many reasons why it is so hard to develop complex RIA applications even on modern browsers, the runtime makes mistakes which other systems like Smalltalk already had eliminated in the mid 70s! But that is more or less the entire problem of the entire web development!</p><p>If I was a real RIA guy I would not be worried either too much, the basic mistakes cannot be fixed anymore and unless someting like XUL (basically a fixed up component model which never became standard) becomes cross platform it just will not be viable to program that stuff for intranet due to cost reasons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets leave the standards aside , RIA development on browsers has a bigger problem when it comes to HTML .
And HTML5 does not take care of it.Lets have a look , usually a RIA application is a self contained application with a load of widgets which in itself are self contained and only via dedicated contracts influencable , the widgets themselves communicate over messages ( events ) Now what do we have in the WEB a huge singleton called the DOM tree , normally not bad in itself , but it has no subtree isolation constructs so we can not really get any isolation , the control language javascript , does not provide that feature either.The only thing really more or less there is the event system , but even that does not work unified over all browsers ! This is one of the many reasons why it is so hard to develop complex RIA applications even on modern browsers , the runtime makes mistakes which other systems like Smalltalk already had eliminated in the mid 70s !
But that is more or less the entire problem of the entire web development ! If I was a real RIA guy I would not be worried either too much , the basic mistakes can not be fixed anymore and unless someting like XUL ( basically a fixed up component model which never became standard ) becomes cross platform it just will not be viable to program that stuff for intranet due to cost reasons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets leave the standards aside, RIA development on browsers has a bigger problem when it comes to HTML.
And HTML5 does not take care of it.Lets have a look, usually a RIA application is a self contained application with a load of widgets which in itself are self contained and only via dedicated contracts influencable, the widgets themselves communicate over messages (events)Now what do we have in the WEB a huge singleton called the DOM tree, normally not bad in itself, but it has no subtree isolation constructs so we cannot really get any isolation, the control language javascript, does not provide that feature either.The only thing really more or less there is the event system, but even that does not work unified over all browsers!This is one of the many reasons why it is so hard to develop complex RIA applications even on modern browsers, the runtime makes mistakes which other systems like Smalltalk already had eliminated in the mid 70s!
But that is more or less the entire problem of the entire web development!If I was a real RIA guy I would not be worried either too much, the basic mistakes cannot be fixed anymore and unless someting like XUL (basically a fixed up component model which never became standard) becomes cross platform it just will not be viable to program that stuff for intranet due to cost reasons!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887</id>
	<title>Need good tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245153180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX all have major vendor tooling support to help coding, developing, deploying on these platforms easy.  I don't know of any tools in existence or in development that can beat the solutions offered by these vendors.  Adobe might be willing to do that in the past, but they own Macromedia (flash) so I don't know if they will step up.  In short, unless the tools are there, it will not see major adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash , Silverlight , and JavaFX all have major vendor tooling support to help coding , developing , deploying on these platforms easy .
I do n't know of any tools in existence or in development that can beat the solutions offered by these vendors .
Adobe might be willing to do that in the past , but they own Macromedia ( flash ) so I do n't know if they will step up .
In short , unless the tools are there , it will not see major adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX all have major vendor tooling support to help coding, developing, deploying on these platforms easy.
I don't know of any tools in existence or in development that can beat the solutions offered by these vendors.
Adobe might be willing to do that in the past, but they own Macromedia (flash) so I don't know if they will step up.
In short, unless the tools are there, it will not see major adoption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355403</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but javascript sucks</title>
	<author>acidrainx</author>
	<datestamp>1245155940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was ready to jump on you when I read the title of your post, but you're right, mostly. JavaScript is actually a really nice language to develop in (for small projects). With features such as lambdas, closures, and functions as first class objects, you can write some very elegant solutions with very little code.</p><p>Even with those features it's still stuck in the dark ages when compared to other modern languages. Prototypal inheritance, while cool, doesn't really offer the power that classical inheritance gives you when you're creating large systems. There's no such thing as <tt>super</tt> in prototypal inheritance, which gets annoying after a while.</p><p>Lately I've been looking into Flex and ActionScript 3. AS3 is basically what EcmaScript 4 was going to be before Microsoft derailed it. It's basically Java with a different syntax, a few extra features (lambdas, closures, namespaces), and no equivalent to <tt>abstract</tt>. It's really nice.</p><p>While I'm all for HTML5 and open standards, I highly doubt that it will ever be able to keep up with proprietary solutions like Flex. There's always going to be that big asshole in the corner who refuses to keep his browser up to date with everyone else. I've written large programs in JavaScript and its just far too stressful trying to keep IE-compliance. Until Microsoft or IE are dead and buried, I'm going to have more fun writing Flex apps that run on all browsers and all platforms without any platform specific code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was ready to jump on you when I read the title of your post , but you 're right , mostly .
JavaScript is actually a really nice language to develop in ( for small projects ) .
With features such as lambdas , closures , and functions as first class objects , you can write some very elegant solutions with very little code.Even with those features it 's still stuck in the dark ages when compared to other modern languages .
Prototypal inheritance , while cool , does n't really offer the power that classical inheritance gives you when you 're creating large systems .
There 's no such thing as super in prototypal inheritance , which gets annoying after a while.Lately I 've been looking into Flex and ActionScript 3 .
AS3 is basically what EcmaScript 4 was going to be before Microsoft derailed it .
It 's basically Java with a different syntax , a few extra features ( lambdas , closures , namespaces ) , and no equivalent to abstract .
It 's really nice.While I 'm all for HTML5 and open standards , I highly doubt that it will ever be able to keep up with proprietary solutions like Flex .
There 's always going to be that big asshole in the corner who refuses to keep his browser up to date with everyone else .
I 've written large programs in JavaScript and its just far too stressful trying to keep IE-compliance .
Until Microsoft or IE are dead and buried , I 'm going to have more fun writing Flex apps that run on all browsers and all platforms without any platform specific code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was ready to jump on you when I read the title of your post, but you're right, mostly.
JavaScript is actually a really nice language to develop in (for small projects).
With features such as lambdas, closures, and functions as first class objects, you can write some very elegant solutions with very little code.Even with those features it's still stuck in the dark ages when compared to other modern languages.
Prototypal inheritance, while cool, doesn't really offer the power that classical inheritance gives you when you're creating large systems.
There's no such thing as super in prototypal inheritance, which gets annoying after a while.Lately I've been looking into Flex and ActionScript 3.
AS3 is basically what EcmaScript 4 was going to be before Microsoft derailed it.
It's basically Java with a different syntax, a few extra features (lambdas, closures, namespaces), and no equivalent to abstract.
It's really nice.While I'm all for HTML5 and open standards, I highly doubt that it will ever be able to keep up with proprietary solutions like Flex.
There's always going to be that big asshole in the corner who refuses to keep his browser up to date with everyone else.
I've written large programs in JavaScript and its just far too stressful trying to keep IE-compliance.
Until Microsoft or IE are dead and buried, I'm going to have more fun writing Flex apps that run on all browsers and all platforms without any platform specific code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358677</id>
	<title>Re:well...</title>
	<author>m50d</author>
	<datestamp>1245271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?</i> <p>Yes, and any sensible browser design would do that. Functionality should be in the program itself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Opera user</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus , Noscript , Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper ?
Yes , and any sensible browser design would do that .
Functionality should be in the program itself .
/Opera user</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're going to give me built-in AdBlock Plus, Noscript, Flashblock and Element Hiding Helper?
Yes, and any sensible browser design would do that.
Functionality should be in the program itself.
/Opera user</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358853</id>
	<title>Typical fanboy posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245230460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354985</id>
	<title>RIA?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245153780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's RIA? Is it like the RIAA but without the A at the end? What's next then, MPA? BS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's RIA ?
Is it like the RIAA but without the A at the end ?
What 's next then , MPA ?
BS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's RIA?
Is it like the RIAA but without the A at the end?
What's next then, MPA?
BS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28366977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28367563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2030204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28366977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28367563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28359355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28361129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28354943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28355713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28358853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28357171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28360893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2030204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2030204.28356075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
