<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_1614222</id>
	<title>What To Expect From HTML5</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268069520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq writes <i>"InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/what-expect-html5-611">what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML</a> &mdash; one that some believe could <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/html-5-could-it-kill-flash-and-silverlight-291">put an end to proprietary Web technologies</a> such as Flash and Silverlight. Among the most eagerly anticipated additions to HTML5 are new elements and APIs that allow content authors to create rich media using nothing more than standards-based HTML. The standard also introduces browser-based application caches, which enable Web apps to <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/02/20/0231227/Google-Phasing-Out-Gears-For-HTML5?art\_pos=1">store information on the client device</a>. 'But for all of HTML5's new features, users shouldn't expect plug-ins to disappear overnight. The Web has a long history of many competing technologies and media formats, and the inertia of that legacy will be difficult to overcome. It may yet be many years before a pure-HTML5 browser will be able to match the capabilities of today's patchwork clients,' McAllister writes. 'In the end, browser market share may be the most significant hurdle for developers interested in making the most of HTML5. Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5 , outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML    one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight .
Among the most eagerly anticipated additions to HTML5 are new elements and APIs that allow content authors to create rich media using nothing more than standards-based HTML .
The standard also introduces browser-based application caches , which enable Web apps to store information on the client device .
'But for all of HTML5 's new features , users should n't expect plug-ins to disappear overnight .
The Web has a long history of many competing technologies and media formats , and the inertia of that legacy will be difficult to overcome .
It may yet be many years before a pure-HTML5 browser will be able to match the capabilities of today 's patchwork clients, ' McAllister writes .
'In the end , browser market share may be the most significant hurdle for developers interested in making the most of HTML5 .
Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates , Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites : a rich version for HTML5-enabled users , and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML — one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight.
Among the most eagerly anticipated additions to HTML5 are new elements and APIs that allow content authors to create rich media using nothing more than standards-based HTML.
The standard also introduces browser-based application caches, which enable Web apps to store information on the client device.
'But for all of HTML5's new features, users shouldn't expect plug-ins to disappear overnight.
The Web has a long history of many competing technologies and media formats, and the inertia of that legacy will be difficult to overcome.
It may yet be many years before a pure-HTML5 browser will be able to match the capabilities of today's patchwork clients,' McAllister writes.
'In the end, browser market share may be the most significant hurdle for developers interested in making the most of HTML5.
Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404552</id>
	<title>And we can expect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet Explorer to implement all the standards-based HTML5 flashy-things features around 2029.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet Explorer to implement all the standards-based HTML5 flashy-things features around 2029 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet Explorer to implement all the standards-based HTML5 flashy-things features around 2029.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403084</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>cool\_story\_bro</author>
	<datestamp>1268076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't want HTML5. I want XHTML2. Get to work on this now.</p></div></blockquote><p>
from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Always do your research, kids!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want HTML5 .
I want XHTML2 .
Get to work on this now .
from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] : HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01 , XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML .
Always do your research , kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want HTML5.
I want XHTML2.
Get to work on this now.
from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML.
Always do your research, kids!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1268077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one said that Apple was big-hearted.  But let's face it.  Flash is a steaming pile.  Very recently, it's been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashes, as well as as the best vector of attack for web malware.  It's installed on almost every computer that surfs the web.  It's a huge resource hog, and incidentally, most flash video players are just streaming down h.264.</p><p>Now last I'd heard, Microsoft had no intention of supporting video tags in IE.  Firefox can't support h.264 (though a plugin could.)  But Safari does.  So it is certainly clear that Apple is the big winner here, and any fighting that they are doing is certainly in their own interests.  But it may still help out people interested in using other browsers eventually.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?</p></div><p>Safari, by deliberate choice, also does not support Vi keystrokes.  Nor do they support, by deliberate choice, reading the contents of your flash drive directly from the browser.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either  yet. But Safari? The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.</p></div><p>Doublethink alert.  Microsoft could support both, and has chosen not to.  Windows 7 ships with h.264.  Apple/Safari is not the odd man out.  What's happened is that the fringe players added support for a codec that no one uses, and the big guns realize how pointless that is and have decided not to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one said that Apple was big-hearted .
But let 's face it .
Flash is a steaming pile .
Very recently , it 's been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashes , as well as as the best vector of attack for web malware .
It 's installed on almost every computer that surfs the web .
It 's a huge resource hog , and incidentally , most flash video players are just streaming down h.264.Now last I 'd heard , Microsoft had no intention of supporting video tags in IE .
Firefox ca n't support h.264 ( though a plugin could .
) But Safari does .
So it is certainly clear that Apple is the big winner here , and any fighting that they are doing is certainly in their own interests .
But it may still help out people interested in using other browsers eventually.In fact , speaking of an unencumbered codec , have you noticed that Safari , by deliberate choice , does not support Ogg Theora ? Safari , by deliberate choice , also does not support Vi keystrokes .
Nor do they support , by deliberate choice , reading the contents of your flash drive directly from the browser.Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and does n't support either yet .
But Safari ?
The odd man out , the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.Doublethink alert .
Microsoft could support both , and has chosen not to .
Windows 7 ships with h.264 .
Apple/Safari is not the odd man out .
What 's happened is that the fringe players added support for a codec that no one uses , and the big guns realize how pointless that is and have decided not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one said that Apple was big-hearted.
But let's face it.
Flash is a steaming pile.
Very recently, it's been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashes, as well as as the best vector of attack for web malware.
It's installed on almost every computer that surfs the web.
It's a huge resource hog, and incidentally, most flash video players are just streaming down h.264.Now last I'd heard, Microsoft had no intention of supporting video tags in IE.
Firefox can't support h.264 (though a plugin could.
)  But Safari does.
So it is certainly clear that Apple is the big winner here, and any fighting that they are doing is certainly in their own interests.
But it may still help out people interested in using other browsers eventually.In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?Safari, by deliberate choice, also does not support Vi keystrokes.
Nor do they support, by deliberate choice, reading the contents of your flash drive directly from the browser.Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either  yet.
But Safari?
The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.Doublethink alert.
Microsoft could support both, and has chosen not to.
Windows 7 ships with h.264.
Apple/Safari is not the odd man out.
What's happened is that the fringe players added support for a codec that no one uses, and the big guns realize how pointless that is and have decided not to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402620</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268073780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a not very big Apple fan, I concur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a not very big Apple fan , I concur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a not very big Apple fan, I concur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403098</id>
	<title>And nothing of value was changed.</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1268076240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.</p></div><p>Is this any different from the last 10 years compensating for people and entire institutions clinging to NN 4, IE 5.5, IE Mac, IE 6, IE 7, shit CSS support vs. tables, or having JS turned off?</p><p>No? Fine then. Budget time and funds as normal.  Glad to know BrowserShots and QuirksMode still have a bright future ahead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates , Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites : a rich version for HTML5-enabled users , and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.Is this any different from the last 10 years compensating for people and entire institutions clinging to NN 4 , IE 5.5 , IE Mac , IE 6 , IE 7 , shit CSS support vs. tables , or having JS turned off ? No ?
Fine then .
Budget time and funds as normal .
Glad to know BrowserShots and QuirksMode still have a bright future ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.Is this any different from the last 10 years compensating for people and entire institutions clinging to NN 4, IE 5.5, IE Mac, IE 6, IE 7, shit CSS support vs. tables, or having JS turned off?No?
Fine then.
Budget time and funds as normal.
Glad to know BrowserShots and QuirksMode still have a bright future ahead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403782</id>
	<title>What some of us get compared to what we expected</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1268079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am still learning Flash and Silverlight myself.  I actually know very little about Flash, but one thing I keep learning about SilverLight, is that many times I will hop onto a message board and get into a discussion/find out a good way to do something/etc. and many times, I am suggested to use Javascript or something else external to help SilverLight to function the way I expect it to.
<br> <br>
Now, I am unsure if Flash is the same way, but if Flash is also the same way, then I would say before we even begin to get all up in arms about which is better, which should be used, which could go away, we need to examine how we can improve what we currently have.
<br> <br>
Now, my main background is PHP, but I also have some background in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net as well (ASP.Net,VB.Net,C#).
<br> <br>
I guess I always assumed that making web applications meant that we would create an application and would be able to deploy it as a single entity onto the web without the need for things such as Javascript to "tag along".  In my eyes, a web application should be just that.
<br> <br>
It sounds strange even to me (that would be like telling me to create a good php website using only php and nothing else).  The stuff should mix and match and everything should play along with each other nicely, but to what point are we pushing this all together to get non browser specific applications?
<br> <br>
I guess, for me, it is a matter of whether or not we should deal much with the standards when the people that implement the browsers themselves do not follow everything within the standards.
<br> <br>
I do also think that we should not have to worry about whether something works on a specific browser.  Yeah, I know, that will never happen, but it would be nice.
<br> <br>
I have a bad habit of digressing, so sorry about that.  Before we are even concerned about whether this will be a SL or Flash killer, maybe we should look at ways to improve what we currently have.  If we just use what we are given and need to reach out to other things such as js to get all of our functionality, then we should really examine why we use js in that situation (and strange enough, for SL, it comes up alot for me) and find a way to improve SL in order to make it work better itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still learning Flash and Silverlight myself .
I actually know very little about Flash , but one thing I keep learning about SilverLight , is that many times I will hop onto a message board and get into a discussion/find out a good way to do something/etc .
and many times , I am suggested to use Javascript or something else external to help SilverLight to function the way I expect it to .
Now , I am unsure if Flash is the same way , but if Flash is also the same way , then I would say before we even begin to get all up in arms about which is better , which should be used , which could go away , we need to examine how we can improve what we currently have .
Now , my main background is PHP , but I also have some background in .Net as well ( ASP.Net,VB.Net,C # ) .
I guess I always assumed that making web applications meant that we would create an application and would be able to deploy it as a single entity onto the web without the need for things such as Javascript to " tag along " .
In my eyes , a web application should be just that .
It sounds strange even to me ( that would be like telling me to create a good php website using only php and nothing else ) .
The stuff should mix and match and everything should play along with each other nicely , but to what point are we pushing this all together to get non browser specific applications ?
I guess , for me , it is a matter of whether or not we should deal much with the standards when the people that implement the browsers themselves do not follow everything within the standards .
I do also think that we should not have to worry about whether something works on a specific browser .
Yeah , I know , that will never happen , but it would be nice .
I have a bad habit of digressing , so sorry about that .
Before we are even concerned about whether this will be a SL or Flash killer , maybe we should look at ways to improve what we currently have .
If we just use what we are given and need to reach out to other things such as js to get all of our functionality , then we should really examine why we use js in that situation ( and strange enough , for SL , it comes up alot for me ) and find a way to improve SL in order to make it work better itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still learning Flash and Silverlight myself.
I actually know very little about Flash, but one thing I keep learning about SilverLight, is that many times I will hop onto a message board and get into a discussion/find out a good way to do something/etc.
and many times, I am suggested to use Javascript or something else external to help SilverLight to function the way I expect it to.
Now, I am unsure if Flash is the same way, but if Flash is also the same way, then I would say before we even begin to get all up in arms about which is better, which should be used, which could go away, we need to examine how we can improve what we currently have.
Now, my main background is PHP, but I also have some background in .Net as well (ASP.Net,VB.Net,C#).
I guess I always assumed that making web applications meant that we would create an application and would be able to deploy it as a single entity onto the web without the need for things such as Javascript to "tag along".
In my eyes, a web application should be just that.
It sounds strange even to me (that would be like telling me to create a good php website using only php and nothing else).
The stuff should mix and match and everything should play along with each other nicely, but to what point are we pushing this all together to get non browser specific applications?
I guess, for me, it is a matter of whether or not we should deal much with the standards when the people that implement the browsers themselves do not follow everything within the standards.
I do also think that we should not have to worry about whether something works on a specific browser.
Yeah, I know, that will never happen, but it would be nice.
I have a bad habit of digressing, so sorry about that.
Before we are even concerned about whether this will be a SL or Flash killer, maybe we should look at ways to improve what we currently have.
If we just use what we are given and need to reach out to other things such as js to get all of our functionality, then we should really examine why we use js in that situation (and strange enough, for SL, it comes up alot for me) and find a way to improve SL in order to make it work better itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403228</id>
	<title>I love standards . . .</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1268076660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . because there are so many to choose!</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
because there are so many to choose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
because there are so many to choose!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402962</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268075520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites</i> How is that any worse than what we have now, where developers are stuck maintaining a version of their site for IE, another for Netscape/Mozilla, and ignoring the fact that their site doesn't work on most other (e.g. mobile) browsers? At least a viable HTML 5 standard holds out the hope of <b>eventually</b> needing only a single version of each website. Google "browser detection" if you don't think supporting multiple browsers is already a problem today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites How is that any worse than what we have now , where developers are stuck maintaining a version of their site for IE , another for Netscape/Mozilla , and ignoring the fact that their site does n't work on most other ( e.g .
mobile ) browsers ?
At least a viable HTML 5 standard holds out the hope of eventually needing only a single version of each website .
Google " browser detection " if you do n't think supporting multiple browsers is already a problem today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites How is that any worse than what we have now, where developers are stuck maintaining a version of their site for IE, another for Netscape/Mozilla, and ignoring the fact that their site doesn't work on most other (e.g.
mobile) browsers?
At least a viable HTML 5 standard holds out the hope of eventually needing only a single version of each website.
Google "browser detection" if you don't think supporting multiple browsers is already a problem today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402778</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it, thereby paving the way for HTML 5.</p></div><p>And big thanks to Google for creating a non-Flash dependent version of YouTube to help Apple do it, and starting to move YouTube away from Flash in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it , thereby paving the way for HTML 5.And big thanks to Google for creating a non-Flash dependent version of YouTube to help Apple do it , and starting to move YouTube away from Flash in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it, thereby paving the way for HTML 5.And big thanks to Google for creating a non-Flash dependent version of YouTube to help Apple do it, and starting to move YouTube away from Flash in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, no, no, you're getting this all wrong - this isn't about what people want or what actually happens in the real world!</p><p>it's about a type of consumer so brainwashed they actually believe that apple are a real force for good, and that anything that stands in the way of their favorite company's marketing machine is sheer anathema.</p><p>oh and not forgetting the stunted ideologue who will sing the praises of html5, knowing full well it won't amount to squat. who could forget them around here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , no , no , you 're getting this all wrong - this is n't about what people want or what actually happens in the real world ! it 's about a type of consumer so brainwashed they actually believe that apple are a real force for good , and that anything that stands in the way of their favorite company 's marketing machine is sheer anathema.oh and not forgetting the stunted ideologue who will sing the praises of html5 , knowing full well it wo n't amount to squat .
who could forget them around here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, no, no, you're getting this all wrong - this isn't about what people want or what actually happens in the real world!it's about a type of consumer so brainwashed they actually believe that apple are a real force for good, and that anything that stands in the way of their favorite company's marketing machine is sheer anathema.oh and not forgetting the stunted ideologue who will sing the praises of html5, knowing full well it won't amount to squat.
who could forget them around here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402790</id>
	<title>Web Forms 2.0</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1268074620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By far the most useful feature for web developers. Data validation with JavaScript off via new input types, available now in Opera. So sad they didn't mention that in the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By far the most useful feature for web developers .
Data validation with JavaScript off via new input types , available now in Opera .
So sad they did n't mention that in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By far the most useful feature for web developers.
Data validation with JavaScript off via new input types, available now in Opera.
So sad they didn't mention that in the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404174</id>
	<title>Re:I understand the substance of your complaint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant, now you've got plenty of mod points for your anti-freedom, anti-choice trolling campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant , now you 've got plenty of mod points for your anti-freedom , anti-choice trolling campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant, now you've got plenty of mod points for your anti-freedom, anti-choice trolling campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404374</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1268081760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big guns? who, Chrome with its tiny marketshare and Safari with its even tinier one? the "big guns" of the browser market are either Microsoft and Mozilla, or just Microsoft depending on where do you draw the line, but only through massive levels of delusion could you arrive at the conclusion that Apple and Google are 'big guns' and Mozilla is merely a 'fringe' player.</p><p>It's funny and sad at the same time, when Microsoft's "we won't support anything" stance is actually likeable compared to what Apple is doing. They won't support what was originally meant to be the official standard, but at least they aren't trying to replace it with patented technology of their own. Though sadder still is when Adobe, bloated and corrupt Adobe, offers a more compelling alternative than either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big guns ?
who , Chrome with its tiny marketshare and Safari with its even tinier one ?
the " big guns " of the browser market are either Microsoft and Mozilla , or just Microsoft depending on where do you draw the line , but only through massive levels of delusion could you arrive at the conclusion that Apple and Google are 'big guns ' and Mozilla is merely a 'fringe ' player.It 's funny and sad at the same time , when Microsoft 's " we wo n't support anything " stance is actually likeable compared to what Apple is doing .
They wo n't support what was originally meant to be the official standard , but at least they are n't trying to replace it with patented technology of their own .
Though sadder still is when Adobe , bloated and corrupt Adobe , offers a more compelling alternative than either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big guns?
who, Chrome with its tiny marketshare and Safari with its even tinier one?
the "big guns" of the browser market are either Microsoft and Mozilla, or just Microsoft depending on where do you draw the line, but only through massive levels of delusion could you arrive at the conclusion that Apple and Google are 'big guns' and Mozilla is merely a 'fringe' player.It's funny and sad at the same time, when Microsoft's "we won't support anything" stance is actually likeable compared to what Apple is doing.
They won't support what was originally meant to be the official standard, but at least they aren't trying to replace it with patented technology of their own.
Though sadder still is when Adobe, bloated and corrupt Adobe, offers a more compelling alternative than either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403010</id>
	<title>They're skipping 2, 3, and 4</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want HTML5.  I want XHTML2.  Get to work on this now.</p></div><p>HTML5 has <a href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#html-vs-xhtml" title="w3.org">two syntaxes</a> [w3.org]: SGML-style "HTML Syntax" (Content-type: text/html) and XML (Content-type: application/xhtml+xml). The latter is called XHTML5, and 5 is greater than 2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want HTML5 .
I want XHTML2 .
Get to work on this now.HTML5 has two syntaxes [ w3.org ] : SGML-style " HTML Syntax " ( Content-type : text/html ) and XML ( Content-type : application/xhtml + xml ) .
The latter is called XHTML5 , and 5 is greater than 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want HTML5.
I want XHTML2.
Get to work on this now.HTML5 has two syntaxes [w3.org]: SGML-style "HTML Syntax" (Content-type: text/html) and XML (Content-type: application/xhtml+xml).
The latter is called XHTML5, and 5 is greater than 2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403942</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268079840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Adobe is more excited about HTML5 than Apple?  It seems to me that Adobe  has much more to be excited about it.  Even though their Flash business unit might see some functionality duplicated in HTML 5, overall the new version will be a huge driver for Dreamweaver and related sales.  Apple is really not being nice either.  Why would HTML5 support the quicktime format and not FLV? both are the same degree of proprietary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Adobe is more excited about HTML5 than Apple ?
It seems to me that Adobe has much more to be excited about it .
Even though their Flash business unit might see some functionality duplicated in HTML 5 , overall the new version will be a huge driver for Dreamweaver and related sales .
Apple is really not being nice either .
Why would HTML5 support the quicktime format and not FLV ?
both are the same degree of proprietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Adobe is more excited about HTML5 than Apple?
It seems to me that Adobe  has much more to be excited about it.
Even though their Flash business unit might see some functionality duplicated in HTML 5, overall the new version will be a huge driver for Dreamweaver and related sales.
Apple is really not being nice either.
Why would HTML5 support the quicktime format and not FLV?
both are the same degree of proprietary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403400</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1268077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess as to why Apple doesn't support Ogg Theora in Safari is because their mobile devices already have hardware support for H.264.  So on Apple's mobile hardware, H.264 video would drastically outperform Ogg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess as to why Apple does n't support Ogg Theora in Safari is because their mobile devices already have hardware support for H.264 .
So on Apple 's mobile hardware , H.264 video would drastically outperform Ogg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess as to why Apple doesn't support Ogg Theora in Safari is because their mobile devices already have hardware support for H.264.
So on Apple's mobile hardware, H.264 video would drastically outperform Ogg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740</id>
	<title>InfoWorld SUCKS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404718</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now let's be fair here - Theora isn't that good. It's XviD-standard, so it's, well, it's <i>okay</i>, but in terms of a drop-in replacement for H.264 for Youtube it does not cut the mustard.</p><p>And Nokia has asserted it has submarine patents on it, and hasn't actually promised not to enforce them (we'd bitterly hate it if it did, given the involvement it's had in things like Maemo and QT, but still). Given that, and that Apple and Nokia are now <i>competitors</i>, Apple do not want to risk Theora. That's the reason why.</p><p>Meanwhile, Google have bought On2. This means they now have the rights to VP7 and, more importantly, VP8 (remember Theora is a slightly-tweaked VP3). VP8 is <i>fast</i>. <i>Very</i> fast. According to what On2 said, it's slightly better than the H.264 profiles, it's scalable at least as well as the SVC extension to H.264, but it's also fast enough to decode in realtime on mobile ARM processors like the A8, A9, and Apple's A4, at screen sizes that count for those devices. It does not <i>need</i> specialised hardware support like H.264 does, but can probably use the pixel shaders on those graphic chips to lighten the load a bit.</p><p>What I think we're waiting for is for Google to do a really, <i>really</i>, <b> <i>really</i> </b> exhaustive patent search - essentially, exhaustively listing all possible worldwide submarines and enumerating them, and carefully eliminating anything from any patent troll that may pose any reasonable litigation threat they aren't certain they have prior art for - to create a VP8-derivative or successor that they can unmask as a new open standard for video, that is H.264-class or better, suitable for devices from mobile scale up to 1080p HD and beyond, and patent-free from now until beyond 2015 (after which MPEG-LA will probably start seriously price-gouging H.264 - if YouTube are still using H.264 then, it will probably become uneconomical).</p><p><i>That</i> is what we need. I'm afraid Theora isn't it. Tarkin wasn't either. Dirac's not too bad, but it's not quite there. And H.264, given its patent status, also isn't there; it's a holding position for some parties for now, but only until 2015 at the very latest. Besides, it's a blockfest - it's really not <i>that</i> good. It can be beaten. H.263 was.</p><p>As for container, if you're going to be serious, honestly Matroska (.mkv) is <i>much</i> more attractive than Ogg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now let 's be fair here - Theora is n't that good .
It 's XviD-standard , so it 's , well , it 's okay , but in terms of a drop-in replacement for H.264 for Youtube it does not cut the mustard.And Nokia has asserted it has submarine patents on it , and has n't actually promised not to enforce them ( we 'd bitterly hate it if it did , given the involvement it 's had in things like Maemo and QT , but still ) .
Given that , and that Apple and Nokia are now competitors , Apple do not want to risk Theora .
That 's the reason why.Meanwhile , Google have bought On2 .
This means they now have the rights to VP7 and , more importantly , VP8 ( remember Theora is a slightly-tweaked VP3 ) .
VP8 is fast .
Very fast .
According to what On2 said , it 's slightly better than the H.264 profiles , it 's scalable at least as well as the SVC extension to H.264 , but it 's also fast enough to decode in realtime on mobile ARM processors like the A8 , A9 , and Apple 's A4 , at screen sizes that count for those devices .
It does not need specialised hardware support like H.264 does , but can probably use the pixel shaders on those graphic chips to lighten the load a bit.What I think we 're waiting for is for Google to do a really , really , really exhaustive patent search - essentially , exhaustively listing all possible worldwide submarines and enumerating them , and carefully eliminating anything from any patent troll that may pose any reasonable litigation threat they are n't certain they have prior art for - to create a VP8-derivative or successor that they can unmask as a new open standard for video , that is H.264-class or better , suitable for devices from mobile scale up to 1080p HD and beyond , and patent-free from now until beyond 2015 ( after which MPEG-LA will probably start seriously price-gouging H.264 - if YouTube are still using H.264 then , it will probably become uneconomical ) .That is what we need .
I 'm afraid Theora is n't it .
Tarkin was n't either .
Dirac 's not too bad , but it 's not quite there .
And H.264 , given its patent status , also is n't there ; it 's a holding position for some parties for now , but only until 2015 at the very latest .
Besides , it 's a blockfest - it 's really not that good .
It can be beaten .
H.263 was.As for container , if you 're going to be serious , honestly Matroska ( .mkv ) is much more attractive than Ogg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now let's be fair here - Theora isn't that good.
It's XviD-standard, so it's, well, it's okay, but in terms of a drop-in replacement for H.264 for Youtube it does not cut the mustard.And Nokia has asserted it has submarine patents on it, and hasn't actually promised not to enforce them (we'd bitterly hate it if it did, given the involvement it's had in things like Maemo and QT, but still).
Given that, and that Apple and Nokia are now competitors, Apple do not want to risk Theora.
That's the reason why.Meanwhile, Google have bought On2.
This means they now have the rights to VP7 and, more importantly, VP8 (remember Theora is a slightly-tweaked VP3).
VP8 is fast.
Very fast.
According to what On2 said, it's slightly better than the H.264 profiles, it's scalable at least as well as the SVC extension to H.264, but it's also fast enough to decode in realtime on mobile ARM processors like the A8, A9, and Apple's A4, at screen sizes that count for those devices.
It does not need specialised hardware support like H.264 does, but can probably use the pixel shaders on those graphic chips to lighten the load a bit.What I think we're waiting for is for Google to do a really, really,  really  exhaustive patent search - essentially, exhaustively listing all possible worldwide submarines and enumerating them, and carefully eliminating anything from any patent troll that may pose any reasonable litigation threat they aren't certain they have prior art for - to create a VP8-derivative or successor that they can unmask as a new open standard for video, that is H.264-class or better, suitable for devices from mobile scale up to 1080p HD and beyond, and patent-free from now until beyond 2015 (after which MPEG-LA will probably start seriously price-gouging H.264 - if YouTube are still using H.264 then, it will probably become uneconomical).That is what we need.
I'm afraid Theora isn't it.
Tarkin wasn't either.
Dirac's not too bad, but it's not quite there.
And H.264, given its patent status, also isn't there; it's a holding position for some parties for now, but only until 2015 at the very latest.
Besides, it's a blockfest - it's really not that good.
It can be beaten.
H.263 was.As for container, if you're going to be serious, honestly Matroska (.mkv) is much more attractive than Ogg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403744</id>
	<title>Re:What are the security risk?</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1268078940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the one hand a lot of functionality is moved rather hastily from dedicated, years old plugins into the browser itself, which opens the door for bugs, incorrect implementations and general fuck-ups. So in the first few browser iterations there certainly is a risk that someone, somewhere, has missed something critical. Though, as with all other bugs, this should be ironed out over time. The foundation for most of the vulnerable parts, JavaScript, has been around for quite some time now; the worst attack vectors should already be mitigated.</p><p>On the other hand we might see the day where Flash is banished from all computers, which would translate into an enormous decrease in security issues, resource consumption and general annoyance. So whatever the risk of all the new code in our browsers may be, I for one think it is worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand a lot of functionality is moved rather hastily from dedicated , years old plugins into the browser itself , which opens the door for bugs , incorrect implementations and general fuck-ups .
So in the first few browser iterations there certainly is a risk that someone , somewhere , has missed something critical .
Though , as with all other bugs , this should be ironed out over time .
The foundation for most of the vulnerable parts , JavaScript , has been around for quite some time now ; the worst attack vectors should already be mitigated.On the other hand we might see the day where Flash is banished from all computers , which would translate into an enormous decrease in security issues , resource consumption and general annoyance .
So whatever the risk of all the new code in our browsers may be , I for one think it is worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand a lot of functionality is moved rather hastily from dedicated, years old plugins into the browser itself, which opens the door for bugs, incorrect implementations and general fuck-ups.
So in the first few browser iterations there certainly is a risk that someone, somewhere, has missed something critical.
Though, as with all other bugs, this should be ironed out over time.
The foundation for most of the vulnerable parts, JavaScript, has been around for quite some time now; the worst attack vectors should already be mitigated.On the other hand we might see the day where Flash is banished from all computers, which would translate into an enormous decrease in security issues, resource consumption and general annoyance.
So whatever the risk of all the new code in our browsers may be, I for one think it is worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748</id>
	<title>What are the security risk?</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1268074440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5? Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5 ?
Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5?
Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405114</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel old now, remembering back to when VRML was the new standard that was going to sweep the web--but didn't amount to squat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel old now , remembering back to when VRML was the new standard that was going to sweep the web--but did n't amount to squat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel old now, remembering back to when VRML was the new standard that was going to sweep the web--but didn't amount to squat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403874</id>
	<title>Re:Er... standing up? Really?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Flash, but Adobe pushes a little sometimes.  Sometimes they push directly on consumers, and sometimes they push on their partners (e.g. Apple, Microsoft).  There was a story about Adobe trying to block certain features from HTML 5 because they would diminish the need for Flash.
</p><p>I wouldn't say that Adobe is a bigger bully than Apple or Microsoft.  But yes, Adobe is pushing against improving web standards that would make it unnecessary for web developers to buy Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Flash , but Adobe pushes a little sometimes .
Sometimes they push directly on consumers , and sometimes they push on their partners ( e.g .
Apple , Microsoft ) .
There was a story about Adobe trying to block certain features from HTML 5 because they would diminish the need for Flash .
I would n't say that Adobe is a bigger bully than Apple or Microsoft .
But yes , Adobe is pushing against improving web standards that would make it unnecessary for web developers to buy Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Flash, but Adobe pushes a little sometimes.
Sometimes they push directly on consumers, and sometimes they push on their partners (e.g.
Apple, Microsoft).
There was a story about Adobe trying to block certain features from HTML 5 because they would diminish the need for Flash.
I wouldn't say that Adobe is a bigger bully than Apple or Microsoft.
But yes, Adobe is pushing against improving web standards that would make it unnecessary for web developers to buy Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402950</id>
	<title>Re:InfoWorld SUCKS</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1268075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.</p></div></blockquote><p>You expect that there will be some substance to it?  I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.You expect that there will be some substance to it ?
I think you 're setting yourself up for disappointment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.You expect that there will be some substance to it?
I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404172</id>
	<title>Flash isn't going anywhere...</title>
	<author>Udigs</author>
	<datestamp>1268081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on. It's bad enough that we can't get simple block elements to render consistently in all browsers, and how we're going to try to build RIAs in "pure HTML?" Sure, it'll work for video content. Anything more complicated? Let me know how that turns out. <br> <br>

Flash's biggest strength is that the Flash player is responsible for running it and therefore is consistent across all platforms. If you ask me, this is a huge clusterfuck waiting to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
It 's bad enough that we ca n't get simple block elements to render consistently in all browsers , and how we 're going to try to build RIAs in " pure HTML ?
" Sure , it 'll work for video content .
Anything more complicated ?
Let me know how that turns out .
Flash 's biggest strength is that the Flash player is responsible for running it and therefore is consistent across all platforms .
If you ask me , this is a huge clusterfuck waiting to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
It's bad enough that we can't get simple block elements to render consistently in all browsers, and how we're going to try to build RIAs in "pure HTML?
" Sure, it'll work for video content.
Anything more complicated?
Let me know how that turns out.
Flash's biggest strength is that the Flash player is responsible for running it and therefore is consistent across all platforms.
If you ask me, this is a huge clusterfuck waiting to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403188</id>
	<title>I understand the substance of your complaint</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268076480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an article in tandem sections if you are a search spider or ad generator!</p><p>(we hope you've enjoyed this exciting article, please click again, and please click a lot</p><p>because we don't think of you as a human reader we should attempt to satisfy, and therefore convince you to visit us again</p><p>we think of you as a monkey we have to somehow trick, annoy, and cajole into clicking a lot, for content counts, page hits, and ad revenue</p><p>internet content is a zero sum game!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an article in tandem sections if you are a search spider or ad generator !
( we hope you 've enjoyed this exciting article , please click again , and please click a lotbecause we do n't think of you as a human reader we should attempt to satisfy , and therefore convince you to visit us againwe think of you as a monkey we have to somehow trick , annoy , and cajole into clicking a lot , for content counts , page hits , and ad revenueinternet content is a zero sum game !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an article in tandem sections if you are a search spider or ad generator!
(we hope you've enjoyed this exciting article, please click again, and please click a lotbecause we don't think of you as a human reader we should attempt to satisfy, and therefore convince you to visit us againwe think of you as a monkey we have to somehow trick, annoy, and cajole into clicking a lot, for content counts, page hits, and ad revenueinternet content is a zero sum game!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412646</id>
	<title>I'll be happy when Lynx supports HTML5</title>
	<author>pjwhite</author>
	<datestamp>1268145720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be happy when lynx supports HTML5.  Though I'm not sure how well it will work with badger, badger, badger...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be happy when lynx supports HTML5 .
Though I 'm not sure how well it will work with badger , badger , badger.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be happy when lynx supports HTML5.
Though I'm not sure how well it will work with badger, badger, badger...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553324</id>
	<title>Re: NO Thank you Apple - Flash on Tegra &amp; Andr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PREGNANCY TEST RESULTS FOR ANYONE APPLE HAS SEEDED UN-FACTUAL DATA INTO</p><p>http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the\_business\_of\_online\_vi/2010/03/test-results-published-show-flash-is-not-a-cpu-hog-like-apple-claims.html</p><p>THE FTC IS WATCHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PREGNANCY TEST RESULTS FOR ANYONE APPLE HAS SEEDED UN-FACTUAL DATA INTOhttp : //blog.streamingmedia.com/the \ _business \ _of \ _online \ _vi/2010/03/test-results-published-show-flash-is-not-a-cpu-hog-like-apple-claims.htmlTHE FTC IS WATCHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PREGNANCY TEST RESULTS FOR ANYONE APPLE HAS SEEDED UN-FACTUAL DATA INTOhttp://blog.streamingmedia.com/the\_business\_of\_online\_vi/2010/03/test-results-published-show-flash-is-not-a-cpu-hog-like-apple-claims.htmlTHE FTC IS WATCHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403558</id>
	<title>Accept-Encoding: gzip</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream</p></div><p>It already has one for at least document bodies (Accept-Encoding: gzip), even if not for the HTTP headers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport streamIt already has one for at least document bodies ( Accept-Encoding : gzip ) , even if not for the HTTP headers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport streamIt already has one for at least document bodies (Accept-Encoding: gzip), even if not for the HTTP headers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31408570</id>
	<title>Re:I'm probably the minority, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree with you. I can't see how HTML5/Javascript will offer developers the same ease-of-use, robustness and base-framework-capabilities that Flash or especially Silverlight offer. Certainly not-to-complex applications won't be a problem. But I am certain I won't be developing a complex game or something like that with HTML5/Javascript.</p><p>I see all the problems that these formats have but it really feels like going back to the stone-age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree with you .
I ca n't see how HTML5/Javascript will offer developers the same ease-of-use , robustness and base-framework-capabilities that Flash or especially Silverlight offer .
Certainly not-to-complex applications wo n't be a problem .
But I am certain I wo n't be developing a complex game or something like that with HTML5/Javascript.I see all the problems that these formats have but it really feels like going back to the stone-age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree with you.
I can't see how HTML5/Javascript will offer developers the same ease-of-use, robustness and base-framework-capabilities that Flash or especially Silverlight offer.
Certainly not-to-complex applications won't be a problem.
But I am certain I won't be developing a complex game or something like that with HTML5/Javascript.I see all the problems that these formats have but it really feels like going back to the stone-age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553182</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269087180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, anyone who first of all claims that HTML5 is the product of Apple work, is crazy.  Apple does not own HTML5.</p><p>Secondly, I've seen great Frameworks come and go, Microsoft's Foundation Classes, Apple's Horrible XCode IDE and its associated APIs for APPLEs OS (such as WebKit which is design to draw all developers to SAFARI), and other OOP classframeworks.</p><p>Adobe's ActionScript 3.0 Framework and its new SPARK Component Architecture for FlashBuilder, is the product of many years of momentum.</p><p>So while people who don't have the skills to learn Flash complain about it, most Flash Developers have move don to ActionScript 3.0 and its associated Frameworks, and paradigms like Model View Controller (which have been around since Objective-C first was released in commercial versions of Frameworks in 1990 !!!</p><p>So Apple neither owns HTML5, nor do they do a good job of an IDE to use their Objective-C frameworks (which their iPhone Applications are based on, the "Thank you Apple" post above calling Flash a juggernaut is posted by someone who knows nothing of the methods behind iPhone or iPad Programming.  Their are just responding to the comment of Video -- My guess, is that Apple is working the Trench-lines to attempt to Influence companies like Template Monster and others.</p><p>For the well observant, its just more food for the FTC to look at Apples Desperate Attempt to fight off 3 fronts of Apples Anti-Competitive Problems: (1) INTEL relationship and locking out AMD, (2) Afraid of Flash Experiences on Mobile Devices which will be well into the mainstream by the time HTML5 can crap its pants, (3) Afraid of Googles Android OS because of its lightweight architecture while iPhone and iPad are Proprietary Devices now with good market share, but with an entropy associated with it that Steve Jobs turned Non-Anonymous Coward, is fearful of losing.</p><p>What money and strongholds on markets do to people in fear of losing them is amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , anyone who first of all claims that HTML5 is the product of Apple work , is crazy .
Apple does not own HTML5.Secondly , I 've seen great Frameworks come and go , Microsoft 's Foundation Classes , Apple 's Horrible XCode IDE and its associated APIs for APPLEs OS ( such as WebKit which is design to draw all developers to SAFARI ) , and other OOP classframeworks.Adobe 's ActionScript 3.0 Framework and its new SPARK Component Architecture for FlashBuilder , is the product of many years of momentum.So while people who do n't have the skills to learn Flash complain about it , most Flash Developers have move don to ActionScript 3.0 and its associated Frameworks , and paradigms like Model View Controller ( which have been around since Objective-C first was released in commercial versions of Frameworks in 1990 ! !
! So Apple neither owns HTML5 , nor do they do a good job of an IDE to use their Objective-C frameworks ( which their iPhone Applications are based on , the " Thank you Apple " post above calling Flash a juggernaut is posted by someone who knows nothing of the methods behind iPhone or iPad Programming .
Their are just responding to the comment of Video -- My guess , is that Apple is working the Trench-lines to attempt to Influence companies like Template Monster and others.For the well observant , its just more food for the FTC to look at Apples Desperate Attempt to fight off 3 fronts of Apples Anti-Competitive Problems : ( 1 ) INTEL relationship and locking out AMD , ( 2 ) Afraid of Flash Experiences on Mobile Devices which will be well into the mainstream by the time HTML5 can crap its pants , ( 3 ) Afraid of Googles Android OS because of its lightweight architecture while iPhone and iPad are Proprietary Devices now with good market share , but with an entropy associated with it that Steve Jobs turned Non-Anonymous Coward , is fearful of losing.What money and strongholds on markets do to people in fear of losing them is amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, anyone who first of all claims that HTML5 is the product of Apple work, is crazy.
Apple does not own HTML5.Secondly, I've seen great Frameworks come and go, Microsoft's Foundation Classes, Apple's Horrible XCode IDE and its associated APIs for APPLEs OS (such as WebKit which is design to draw all developers to SAFARI), and other OOP classframeworks.Adobe's ActionScript 3.0 Framework and its new SPARK Component Architecture for FlashBuilder, is the product of many years of momentum.So while people who don't have the skills to learn Flash complain about it, most Flash Developers have move don to ActionScript 3.0 and its associated Frameworks, and paradigms like Model View Controller (which have been around since Objective-C first was released in commercial versions of Frameworks in 1990 !!
!So Apple neither owns HTML5, nor do they do a good job of an IDE to use their Objective-C frameworks (which their iPhone Applications are based on, the "Thank you Apple" post above calling Flash a juggernaut is posted by someone who knows nothing of the methods behind iPhone or iPad Programming.
Their are just responding to the comment of Video -- My guess, is that Apple is working the Trench-lines to attempt to Influence companies like Template Monster and others.For the well observant, its just more food for the FTC to look at Apples Desperate Attempt to fight off 3 fronts of Apples Anti-Competitive Problems: (1) INTEL relationship and locking out AMD, (2) Afraid of Flash Experiences on Mobile Devices which will be well into the mainstream by the time HTML5 can crap its pants, (3) Afraid of Googles Android OS because of its lightweight architecture while iPhone and iPad are Proprietary Devices now with good market share, but with an entropy associated with it that Steve Jobs turned Non-Anonymous Coward, is fearful of losing.What money and strongholds on markets do to people in fear of losing them is amazing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407314</id>
	<title>Would it kill them to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put conditionals and loops into HTML??  This would relieve us of a lot of javascript and json worries.  You know [if value = "postVar = X"]Blah[else]Blah[/else][/if].... etc... And how about deprecating a lot of non standard tags so we can create better tags down the road?  You know "checked = 'checked'" and all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put conditionals and loops into HTML ? ?
This would relieve us of a lot of javascript and json worries .
You know [ if value = " postVar = X " ] Blah [ else ] Blah [ /else ] [ /if ] .... etc... And how about deprecating a lot of non standard tags so we can create better tags down the road ?
You know " checked = 'checked ' " and all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put conditionals and loops into HTML??
This would relieve us of a lot of javascript and json worries.
You know [if value = "postVar = X"]Blah[else]Blah[/else][/if].... etc... And how about deprecating a lot of non standard tags so we can create better tags down the road?
You know "checked = 'checked'" and all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403570</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use anything with SVG support.</p><p>And CSS3 has native support for animation control, quite powerful control at that.</p><p>The only thing that it doesn't have great support for yet is some of the things that people are used to with Flash development.<br>Preloaders are one thing, file portability is another, permissions and some other things.</p><p>File portability can be done just Base64ing the files and storing them in a variable somewhere at the bottom, but this will add an extra X\% of bytes on to the end of the file (forgot the exact value)<br>Of course, considering how most of the imagery is usually vectors in Flash games, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use anything with SVG support.And CSS3 has native support for animation control , quite powerful control at that.The only thing that it does n't have great support for yet is some of the things that people are used to with Flash development.Preloaders are one thing , file portability is another , permissions and some other things.File portability can be done just Base64ing the files and storing them in a variable somewhere at the bottom , but this will add an extra X \ % of bytes on to the end of the file ( forgot the exact value ) Of course , considering how most of the imagery is usually vectors in Flash games , it should n't be too much of a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use anything with SVG support.And CSS3 has native support for animation control, quite powerful control at that.The only thing that it doesn't have great support for yet is some of the things that people are used to with Flash development.Preloaders are one thing, file portability is another, permissions and some other things.File portability can be done just Base64ing the files and storing them in a variable somewhere at the bottom, but this will add an extra X\% of bytes on to the end of the file (forgot the exact value)Of course, considering how most of the imagery is usually vectors in Flash games, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412670</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268145900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, probably nothing since HTML 5 is completely new.  There is no reason that Adobe Flash could not save to HTML 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , probably nothing since HTML 5 is completely new .
There is no reason that Adobe Flash could not save to HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, probably nothing since HTML 5 is completely new.
There is no reason that Adobe Flash could not save to HTML 5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402588</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except nobody uses Apple products that count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except nobody uses Apple products that count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except nobody uses Apple products that count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403664</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thaaank you. This is the first time I see someone else mention what I believe is Flash's big key (and I believe, what it was created for before becoming a huge bloated "platform"). There is no other "simple" method of vector animation besides Flash right now. I've heard SVG has some support, but I haven't seen any apps to make "animated SVG's"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thaaank you .
This is the first time I see someone else mention what I believe is Flash 's big key ( and I believe , what it was created for before becoming a huge bloated " platform " ) .
There is no other " simple " method of vector animation besides Flash right now .
I 've heard SVG has some support , but I have n't seen any apps to make " animated SVG 's "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thaaank you.
This is the first time I see someone else mention what I believe is Flash's big key (and I believe, what it was created for before becoming a huge bloated "platform").
There is no other "simple" method of vector animation besides Flash right now.
I've heard SVG has some support, but I haven't seen any apps to make "animated SVG's"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404400</id>
	<title>One proprietary format is no better than another</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1268081880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are still complaining about the lack of Flash on iPhone and iPad. This shows that people can't live without it <b>right now.</b> </p><p>Telling people they can't have Flash on the iP* but that they can compile their Flash apps for the iP* doesn't make it any better. Apple could care less if HTML5 replaced Flash. What they really want is more iP*-exclusive apps.</p><p>You're mistaking the bully (Apple) for the savior. What was that syndrome called again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are still complaining about the lack of Flash on iPhone and iPad .
This shows that people ca n't live without it right now .
Telling people they ca n't have Flash on the iP * but that they can compile their Flash apps for the iP * does n't make it any better .
Apple could care less if HTML5 replaced Flash .
What they really want is more iP * -exclusive apps.You 're mistaking the bully ( Apple ) for the savior .
What was that syndrome called again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are still complaining about the lack of Flash on iPhone and iPad.
This shows that people can't live without it right now.
Telling people they can't have Flash on the iP* but that they can compile their Flash apps for the iP* doesn't make it any better.
Apple could care less if HTML5 replaced Flash.
What they really want is more iP*-exclusive apps.You're mistaking the bully (Apple) for the savior.
What was that syndrome called again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31417398</id>
	<title>move on</title>
	<author>raphael75</author>
	<datestamp>1268165220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gives a f--- about old browsers? Do people still make parts for Model T's? Do we still have butter churns? No, we move forward and those who don't upgrade get left in the dust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a f--- about old browsers ?
Do people still make parts for Model T 's ?
Do we still have butter churns ?
No , we move forward and those who do n't upgrade get left in the dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a f--- about old browsers?
Do people still make parts for Model T's?
Do we still have butter churns?
No, we move forward and those who don't upgrade get left in the dust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404036</id>
	<title>Re:Er... standing up? Really?</title>
	<author>Joe Tie.</author>
	<datestamp>1268080380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, let me tell you, as a linux user I really miss the pre flash video days. It's so annoying facing a somewhat heavy processor load while watching videos online, compared to not being able to see them at all. To getting codec errors, and redirects because the browser detection was windows-centric or because they actually booted people away that were using linux. Glad to see those wonderful days might be making a comeback!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , let me tell you , as a linux user I really miss the pre flash video days .
It 's so annoying facing a somewhat heavy processor load while watching videos online , compared to not being able to see them at all .
To getting codec errors , and redirects because the browser detection was windows-centric or because they actually booted people away that were using linux .
Glad to see those wonderful days might be making a comeback !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, let me tell you, as a linux user I really miss the pre flash video days.
It's so annoying facing a somewhat heavy processor load while watching videos online, compared to not being able to see them at all.
To getting codec errors, and redirects because the browser detection was windows-centric or because they actually booted people away that were using linux.
Glad to see those wonderful days might be making a comeback!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832</id>
	<title>Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well</title>
	<author>mozumder</author>
	<datestamp>1268074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream, such as what Opera does with its mobile for Turbo speeds.</p><p>Standard encryption would also be appreciated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream , such as what Opera does with its mobile for Turbo speeds.Standard encryption would also be appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream, such as what Opera does with its mobile for Turbo speeds.Standard encryption would also be appreciated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412714</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Flash works fine on mobile devices.  There are 3rd-party Flash players that are optimized for those kinds of processors.  Lots of embedded devices use Flash internally, as do some games.</p><p>2) Is there any reason that HTML5 would be any better or worse on mobile devices than Flash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Flash works fine on mobile devices .
There are 3rd-party Flash players that are optimized for those kinds of processors .
Lots of embedded devices use Flash internally , as do some games.2 ) Is there any reason that HTML5 would be any better or worse on mobile devices than Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Flash works fine on mobile devices.
There are 3rd-party Flash players that are optimized for those kinds of processors.
Lots of embedded devices use Flash internally, as do some games.2) Is there any reason that HTML5 would be any better or worse on mobile devices than Flash?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403396</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>daveisfera</author>
	<datestamp>1268077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that Apple has also stood in the way of the adoption of Ogg Theora as a standard for the video tag, so they're doing just as much to prevent the dismissal of flash as they are usher it in (or you could be even more tinfoil hatish and say that they're just trying to replace one proprietary standard with another).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that Apple has also stood in the way of the adoption of Ogg Theora as a standard for the video tag , so they 're doing just as much to prevent the dismissal of flash as they are usher it in ( or you could be even more tinfoil hatish and say that they 're just trying to replace one proprietary standard with another ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that Apple has also stood in the way of the adoption of Ogg Theora as a standard for the video tag, so they're doing just as much to prevent the dismissal of flash as they are usher it in (or you could be even more tinfoil hatish and say that they're just trying to replace one proprietary standard with another).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404348</id>
	<title>What to Expect from HTML5?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably not much until IE supports it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not much until IE supports it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not much until IE supports it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31409356</id>
	<title>Re:What are the security risk?</title>
	<author>mmj638</author>
	<datestamp>1268064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The security risk is bound to depend on the openness of the standards.</p><p>HTML5 is absolutely open; anybody can read the specification, and anybody can inspect the source code of any of the free HTML5 implementations (as for proprietary implementations, you'd have to put your faith in the vendor).</p><p>Flash is not open like HTML5; while free implementations of clients exist their market usage is not even a blip on the radar and their functionality is lacking.  Everybody* uses Adobe's client for which source code is not available.  So, security here will depend on your faith in the vendor to a much greater extent.</p><p>I personally have more faith in the security-through-transparency model and favor open standards and technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security risk is bound to depend on the openness of the standards.HTML5 is absolutely open ; anybody can read the specification , and anybody can inspect the source code of any of the free HTML5 implementations ( as for proprietary implementations , you 'd have to put your faith in the vendor ) .Flash is not open like HTML5 ; while free implementations of clients exist their market usage is not even a blip on the radar and their functionality is lacking .
Everybody * uses Adobe 's client for which source code is not available .
So , security here will depend on your faith in the vendor to a much greater extent.I personally have more faith in the security-through-transparency model and favor open standards and technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security risk is bound to depend on the openness of the standards.HTML5 is absolutely open; anybody can read the specification, and anybody can inspect the source code of any of the free HTML5 implementations (as for proprietary implementations, you'd have to put your faith in the vendor).Flash is not open like HTML5; while free implementations of clients exist their market usage is not even a blip on the radar and their functionality is lacking.
Everybody* uses Adobe's client for which source code is not available.
So, security here will depend on your faith in the vendor to a much greater extent.I personally have more faith in the security-through-transparency model and favor open standards and technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403848</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again someone assuming Ogg Theora is a better codec despite lots of intelligent arguments against it from a codec standpoint. YAY SLASHDOT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again someone assuming Ogg Theora is a better codec despite lots of intelligent arguments against it from a codec standpoint .
YAY SLASHDOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again someone assuming Ogg Theora is a better codec despite lots of intelligent arguments against it from a codec standpoint.
YAY SLASHDOT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407210</id>
	<title>just a sec...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>inb4 MS screws this standard up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>inb4 MS screws this standard up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inb4 MS screws this standard up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403250</id>
	<title>If Adobe adds an 'Export to HTML 5' option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268076780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't that make Flash a great HTML 5 editor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't that make Flash a great HTML 5 editor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't that make Flash a great HTML 5 editor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403904</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you see, this alpha quality command line based library for Linux is far superior to any "dumbed down IDE" you may have used in the past because,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you see , this alpha quality command line based library for Linux is far superior to any " dumbed down IDE " you may have used in the past because,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you see, this alpha quality command line based library for Linux is far superior to any "dumbed down IDE" you may have used in the past because,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404124</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1268080800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, big thanks to Apple for preventing anything capable of interpreting arbitrary scripts to be installed or run on the iPhone so they can ensure that any apps (and especially games) used on the device came from their app store.</p><p>Don't get me wrong I don't condemn them for it, but they are most certainly not doing it to be altruistic, or for the good of the Internet as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , big thanks to Apple for preventing anything capable of interpreting arbitrary scripts to be installed or run on the iPhone so they can ensure that any apps ( and especially games ) used on the device came from their app store.Do n't get me wrong I do n't condemn them for it , but they are most certainly not doing it to be altruistic , or for the good of the Internet as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, big thanks to Apple for preventing anything capable of interpreting arbitrary scripts to be installed or run on the iPhone so they can ensure that any apps (and especially games) used on the device came from their app store.Don't get me wrong I don't condemn them for it, but they are most certainly not doing it to be altruistic, or for the good of the Internet as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</id>
	<title>...Now help standardize on non-proprietary codecs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not kid ourselves.  Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted.  They're pulling people away from Flash because <i>they</i> want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.</p><p>If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.</p><p>In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, <i>by deliberate choice</i>, does not support Ogg Theora?  I mean, I can understand them implementing H.264, if they think it's a better codec.  Google does too, and they've said on record that they think that H.264 is superior.  Nevertheless, Chrome does also support Ogg Theora.  Opera supports Ogg Theora.  Firefox, of course supports Ogg Theora, and due to its open source nature, <i>can't</i> support H.264 unless it's released to the public domain.  Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support <i>either</i> yet.  But Safari?  The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.</p><p>So yeah, no thanks, Apple.  At least, not yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not kid ourselves .
Apple is n't trying to pull people away from Flash because they 're big-hearted .
They 're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content , via the sweet deal with MPEG LA ( who owns the H.264 patent ) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.If Apple really had our best interests at heart , they would be either 1 ) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard , or 2 ) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably " better " codec.In fact , speaking of an unencumbered codec , have you noticed that Safari , by deliberate choice , does not support Ogg Theora ?
I mean , I can understand them implementing H.264 , if they think it 's a better codec .
Google does too , and they 've said on record that they think that H.264 is superior .
Nevertheless , Chrome does also support Ogg Theora .
Opera supports Ogg Theora .
Firefox , of course supports Ogg Theora , and due to its open source nature , ca n't support H.264 unless it 's released to the public domain .
Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and does n't support either yet .
But Safari ?
The odd man out , the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.So yeah , no thanks , Apple .
At least , not yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not kid ourselves.
Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted.
They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?
I mean, I can understand them implementing H.264, if they think it's a better codec.
Google does too, and they've said on record that they think that H.264 is superior.
Nevertheless, Chrome does also support Ogg Theora.
Opera supports Ogg Theora.
Firefox, of course supports Ogg Theora, and due to its open source nature, can't support H.264 unless it's released to the public domain.
Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either yet.
But Safari?
The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.So yeah, no thanks, Apple.
At least, not yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403166</id>
	<title>HTML5? Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no video codec will replace your flash player, no javascript can take the place of a well designed ActiveX plugin and no web standard will change the way the internet works.</p><p>I'm sorry, but Clifford Stoll made my day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baloney .
Do our computer pundits lack all common sense ?
The truth is no video codec will replace your flash player , no javascript can take the place of a well designed ActiveX plugin and no web standard will change the way the internet works.I 'm sorry , but Clifford Stoll made my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baloney.
Do our computer pundits lack all common sense?
The truth is no video codec will replace your flash player, no javascript can take the place of a well designed ActiveX plugin and no web standard will change the way the internet works.I'm sorry, but Clifford Stoll made my day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402946</id>
	<title>Bizna7ch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">a popular '8edws</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>a popular '8edws [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a popular '8edws [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404688</id>
	<title>Flash is a bridge between Design and Programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML 5 may well replace Flash for embedded video, drag-drop functionality, and other rich-interface elements. However, the reason for its success for over 13 years is not due to its strengths or weaknesses as a programming tool. It's strength is that it bridges the world of graphic and animation design with programming.</p><p>I challenge anyone to name a development tool that can be used by both the programming and design departments of a development team. Ever tried to make timed animation with DHTML?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML 5 may well replace Flash for embedded video , drag-drop functionality , and other rich-interface elements .
However , the reason for its success for over 13 years is not due to its strengths or weaknesses as a programming tool .
It 's strength is that it bridges the world of graphic and animation design with programming.I challenge anyone to name a development tool that can be used by both the programming and design departments of a development team .
Ever tried to make timed animation with DHTML ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML 5 may well replace Flash for embedded video, drag-drop functionality, and other rich-interface elements.
However, the reason for its success for over 13 years is not due to its strengths or weaknesses as a programming tool.
It's strength is that it bridges the world of graphic and animation design with programming.I challenge anyone to name a development tool that can be used by both the programming and design departments of a development team.
Ever tried to make timed animation with DHTML?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402828</id>
	<title>Legacy browsers</title>
	<author>olau</author>
	<datestamp>1268074800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks</i></p> </div><p>It doesn't have to be that grim. I've written a charting library for Javascript using the HTML canvas, and thank God some people have written an emulation library for IE so (most) things just work as expected when you include the library (and do a little secret dance). So I don't have to maintain two code bases. This can probably happen again. Never underestimate the momentum of thousands of angry developers.</p><p>I don't think the browsers are quite ready to replace Flash and similar for little arcade/action games, yet though, the real-time properties aren't good enough yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks It does n't have to be that grim .
I 've written a charting library for Javascript using the HTML canvas , and thank God some people have written an emulation library for IE so ( most ) things just work as expected when you include the library ( and do a little secret dance ) .
So I do n't have to maintain two code bases .
This can probably happen again .
Never underestimate the momentum of thousands of angry developers.I do n't think the browsers are quite ready to replace Flash and similar for little arcade/action games , yet though , the real-time properties are n't good enough yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks It doesn't have to be that grim.
I've written a charting library for Javascript using the HTML canvas, and thank God some people have written an emulation library for IE so (most) things just work as expected when you include the library (and do a little secret dance).
So I don't have to maintain two code bases.
This can probably happen again.
Never underestimate the momentum of thousands of angry developers.I don't think the browsers are quite ready to replace Flash and similar for little arcade/action games, yet though, the real-time properties aren't good enough yet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31429332</id>
	<title>Re:What to Expect from HTML5?</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1268251260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS (&amp; IE) do not carry the wieght anymore that they did a couple years back. When HTML5 is required for YouTube IE becomes second fiddle. Google decides when the Ax falls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS ( &amp; IE ) do not carry the wieght anymore that they did a couple years back .
When HTML5 is required for YouTube IE becomes second fiddle .
Google decides when the Ax falls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS (&amp; IE) do not carry the wieght anymore that they did a couple years back.
When HTML5 is required for YouTube IE becomes second fiddle.
Google decides when the Ax falls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403390</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1268077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sir, are wrong: The common hot dog has two ends, and no beginning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are wrong : The common hot dog has two ends , and no beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are wrong: The common hot dog has two ends, and no beginning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want HTML5.  I want XHTML2.  Get to work on this now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want HTML5 .
I want XHTML2 .
Get to work on this now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want HTML5.
I want XHTML2.
Get to work on this now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403676</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>PenguSven</author>
	<datestamp>1268078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content</p></div></blockquote><p>
Apple aren't the only ones who would rather live without Flash.

The sheer fact that browser plugins like ClickToFlash, FlashBlock, etc exist show that people are sick of the generally crummy things Flash is used for.</p><blockquote><div><p> In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's not as though Google created WebKit and put support for Ogg into the codebase, and Apple remove it in their own builds.

Google added Ogg support themselves. I'm guessing because if they didn't the Chromium crowd would get NO video codecs included.

This makes your logic backwards. It would be a deliberate choice to add Ogg support, as it requires action.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content Apple are n't the only ones who would rather live without Flash .
The sheer fact that browser plugins like ClickToFlash , FlashBlock , etc exist show that people are sick of the generally crummy things Flash is used for .
In fact , speaking of an unencumbered codec , have you noticed that Safari , by deliberate choice , does not support Ogg Theora ?
It 's not as though Google created WebKit and put support for Ogg into the codebase , and Apple remove it in their own builds .
Google added Ogg support themselves .
I 'm guessing because if they did n't the Chromium crowd would get NO video codecs included .
This makes your logic backwards .
It would be a deliberate choice to add Ogg support , as it requires action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content
Apple aren't the only ones who would rather live without Flash.
The sheer fact that browser plugins like ClickToFlash, FlashBlock, etc exist show that people are sick of the generally crummy things Flash is used for.
In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?
It's not as though Google created WebKit and put support for Ogg into the codebase, and Apple remove it in their own builds.
Google added Ogg support themselves.
I'm guessing because if they didn't the Chromium crowd would get NO video codecs included.
This makes your logic backwards.
It would be a deliberate choice to add Ogg support, as it requires action.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402970</id>
	<title>I understand the substance of your complaint</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>however I would assert that</p><p>(please click the next comment below the parent to see more insight)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>however I would assert that ( please click the next comment below the parent to see more insight )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however I would assert that(please click the next comment below the parent to see more insight)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31406064</id>
	<title>Here is another one - javascript is like BASIC</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1268045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why this is, but going back to HTML and JavaScript (in its current incarnation) is like going back to text terminals with amber output and developing in BASIC. It is ridiculous.</p><p>Adobe at least tried to get JavaScript overhauled but was voted down. Sure they had their own agenda, but JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way. Capital as in capital offence. It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that isn't an offence to software development practices everywhere.</p><p>Honestly, any developer suggesting that one should build large LOB enterprise applications using Javascript for ANYTHING should have his position reviewed. Obviously it is the only solution in many cases, but anywhere there are alternative solutions they should ALWAYS be chosen.</p><p>Five years down the line when people come to me and ask me to maintain some LOB application written with any amount of JavaScript, generated like in SEAM/Richfaces or written from scratch I will demand higher hourly pay than two Oracle DBAs plus an SAP consultant. LOBs enterprise apps written today to run in Browsers are going to become maintenance nightmares over the next few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why this is , but going back to HTML and JavaScript ( in its current incarnation ) is like going back to text terminals with amber output and developing in BASIC .
It is ridiculous.Adobe at least tried to get JavaScript overhauled but was voted down .
Sure they had their own agenda , but JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way .
Capital as in capital offence .
It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that is n't an offence to software development practices everywhere.Honestly , any developer suggesting that one should build large LOB enterprise applications using Javascript for ANYTHING should have his position reviewed .
Obviously it is the only solution in many cases , but anywhere there are alternative solutions they should ALWAYS be chosen.Five years down the line when people come to me and ask me to maintain some LOB application written with any amount of JavaScript , generated like in SEAM/Richfaces or written from scratch I will demand higher hourly pay than two Oracle DBAs plus an SAP consultant .
LOBs enterprise apps written today to run in Browsers are going to become maintenance nightmares over the next few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why this is, but going back to HTML and JavaScript (in its current incarnation) is like going back to text terminals with amber output and developing in BASIC.
It is ridiculous.Adobe at least tried to get JavaScript overhauled but was voted down.
Sure they had their own agenda, but JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way.
Capital as in capital offence.
It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that isn't an offence to software development practices everywhere.Honestly, any developer suggesting that one should build large LOB enterprise applications using Javascript for ANYTHING should have his position reviewed.
Obviously it is the only solution in many cases, but anywhere there are alternative solutions they should ALWAYS be chosen.Five years down the line when people come to me and ask me to maintain some LOB application written with any amount of JavaScript, generated like in SEAM/Richfaces or written from scratch I will demand higher hourly pay than two Oracle DBAs plus an SAP consultant.
LOBs enterprise apps written today to run in Browsers are going to become maintenance nightmares over the next few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403748</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.</p></div><p>How is Apple going to be the gateway for all H264 content?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.</p></div><p>Well I don't think they have control of the H264 patents, so I'm not sure they can do much to force it into the public domain.  As for Ogg Theora, it's necessary to ask the question, why didn't Apple use it as their format of choice?  There may be various kinds of reasons.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?</p></div><p>Well I'm not sure what you mean by "by deliberate choice".  Apple doesn't include a codec for Ogg in Quicktime by default, but you can download the codec from Xiph and install it.  Safari plays whatever formats Quicktime plays.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either yet. But Safari? The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.</p></div><p>No, Microsoft supports H264 in the default install of Windows 7, but they don't support Ogg.  Also, many open source projects support H264 in some form, depending on how observant they are of US patent laws.  Also, though Google has Ogg support in Chrome, they generally aren't supporting Ogg on their sites.  Safari isn't really odd-man-out here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content , via the sweet deal with MPEG LA ( who owns the H.264 patent ) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.How is Apple going to be the gateway for all H264 content ?
If Apple really had our best interests at heart , they would be either 1 ) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard , or 2 ) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably " better " codec.Well I do n't think they have control of the H264 patents , so I 'm not sure they can do much to force it into the public domain .
As for Ogg Theora , it 's necessary to ask the question , why did n't Apple use it as their format of choice ?
There may be various kinds of reasons.In fact , speaking of an unencumbered codec , have you noticed that Safari , by deliberate choice , does not support Ogg Theora ? Well I 'm not sure what you mean by " by deliberate choice " .
Apple does n't include a codec for Ogg in Quicktime by default , but you can download the codec from Xiph and install it .
Safari plays whatever formats Quicktime plays.Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and does n't support either yet .
But Safari ?
The odd man out , the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.No , Microsoft supports H264 in the default install of Windows 7 , but they do n't support Ogg .
Also , many open source projects support H264 in some form , depending on how observant they are of US patent laws .
Also , though Google has Ogg support in Chrome , they generally are n't supporting Ogg on their sites .
Safari is n't really odd-man-out here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.How is Apple going to be the gateway for all H264 content?
If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.Well I don't think they have control of the H264 patents, so I'm not sure they can do much to force it into the public domain.
As for Ogg Theora, it's necessary to ask the question, why didn't Apple use it as their format of choice?
There may be various kinds of reasons.In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?Well I'm not sure what you mean by "by deliberate choice".
Apple doesn't include a codec for Ogg in Quicktime by default, but you can download the codec from Xiph and install it.
Safari plays whatever formats Quicktime plays.Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either yet.
But Safari?
The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.No, Microsoft supports H264 in the default install of Windows 7, but they don't support Ogg.
Also, many open source projects support H264 in some form, depending on how observant they are of US patent laws.
Also, though Google has Ogg support in Chrome, they generally aren't supporting Ogg on their sites.
Safari isn't really odd-man-out here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407744</id>
	<title>Re:Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1268052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can already use gzip to compress the transport stream.</p><p>SSL is a pretty good standard, although a better technique for certification of keys would be nice. TBH, though, most content does not need to be encrypted because you are serving up the same content to whoever asks for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can already use gzip to compress the transport stream.SSL is a pretty good standard , although a better technique for certification of keys would be nice .
TBH , though , most content does not need to be encrypted because you are serving up the same content to whoever asks for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can already use gzip to compress the transport stream.SSL is a pretty good standard, although a better technique for certification of keys would be nice.
TBH, though, most content does not need to be encrypted because you are serving up the same content to whoever asks for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405712</id>
	<title>html5-block add-on?</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1268044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that a flash-blocking addon is pretty much a requirement to make the web readable these days, does this fancy html5 come with an expectation that browsers will give client-users more power to control what craziness sites are allowed to access with all these more intrusive "features"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that a flash-blocking addon is pretty much a requirement to make the web readable these days , does this fancy html5 come with an expectation that browsers will give client-users more power to control what craziness sites are allowed to access with all these more intrusive " features " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that a flash-blocking addon is pretty much a requirement to make the web readable these days, does this fancy html5 come with an expectation that browsers will give client-users more power to control what craziness sites are allowed to access with all these more intrusive "features"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405758</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>joebok</author>
	<datestamp>1268044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding was that Apple didn't implement flash on the iPhone/iTouch because it essentially allows applications to be run on the device that didn't go through their store.  If that is true then I doubt Apple will implement an HTML 5 browser on their iDevices that will allow much functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding was that Apple did n't implement flash on the iPhone/iTouch because it essentially allows applications to be run on the device that did n't go through their store .
If that is true then I doubt Apple will implement an HTML 5 browser on their iDevices that will allow much functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding was that Apple didn't implement flash on the iPhone/iTouch because it essentially allows applications to be run on the device that didn't go through their store.
If that is true then I doubt Apple will implement an HTML 5 browser on their iDevices that will allow much functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402924</id>
	<title>Re:What are the security risk?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1268075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5? Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?</p></div><p>It's something of a trade off, but long term an improvement. You see, either way you can disable the plugin or disable javascript for a site to prevent exploits. With Javascript and HTML5 though, you can pick any browser to use and there is ongoing competition for making the best one. For Flash and Silverlight, you're stuck with a single vendor providing it, so any vulnerability and you're stuck waiting for Adobe and MS respectively. You can compare it to e-mail, perhaps. What is more secure Outlook, or standards compliant POP and IMAP clients collectively? Would you feel more secure using Outlook for your e-mail or taking your pick of any e-mail client that supports POP and IMAP?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5 ?
Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities ? It 's something of a trade off , but long term an improvement .
You see , either way you can disable the plugin or disable javascript for a site to prevent exploits .
With Javascript and HTML5 though , you can pick any browser to use and there is ongoing competition for making the best one .
For Flash and Silverlight , you 're stuck with a single vendor providing it , so any vulnerability and you 're stuck waiting for Adobe and MS respectively .
You can compare it to e-mail , perhaps .
What is more secure Outlook , or standards compliant POP and IMAP clients collectively ?
Would you feel more secure using Outlook for your e-mail or taking your pick of any e-mail client that supports POP and IMAP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5?
Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?It's something of a trade off, but long term an improvement.
You see, either way you can disable the plugin or disable javascript for a site to prevent exploits.
With Javascript and HTML5 though, you can pick any browser to use and there is ongoing competition for making the best one.
For Flash and Silverlight, you're stuck with a single vendor providing it, so any vulnerability and you're stuck waiting for Adobe and MS respectively.
You can compare it to e-mail, perhaps.
What is more secure Outlook, or standards compliant POP and IMAP clients collectively?
Would you feel more secure using Outlook for your e-mail or taking your pick of any e-mail client that supports POP and IMAP?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404614</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1268039460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple supports Theora in exactly the same way Firefox (in theory, I think) supports H.264. Plugins.</p><p>Download and install <a href="http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/" title="xiph.org">the XiphQT components</a> [xiph.org], and HTML5 ogg/vorbis/theora video will play perfectly in Safari. If the installation doesn't seem user-friendly enough to you (involves dragging and dropping to a system folder), I imagine anyone could package up a neater, easier-to-use version if there was motivation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple supports Theora in exactly the same way Firefox ( in theory , I think ) supports H.264 .
Plugins.Download and install the XiphQT components [ xiph.org ] , and HTML5 ogg/vorbis/theora video will play perfectly in Safari .
If the installation does n't seem user-friendly enough to you ( involves dragging and dropping to a system folder ) , I imagine anyone could package up a neater , easier-to-use version if there was motivation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple supports Theora in exactly the same way Firefox (in theory, I think) supports H.264.
Plugins.Download and install the XiphQT components [xiph.org], and HTML5 ogg/vorbis/theora video will play perfectly in Safari.
If the installation doesn't seem user-friendly enough to you (involves dragging and dropping to a system folder), I imagine anyone could package up a neater, easier-to-use version if there was motivation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</id>
	<title>Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268073180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it, thereby paving the way for HTML 5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it , thereby paving the way for HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it, thereby paving the way for HTML 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403114</id>
	<title>The funny part</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1268076240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the last meet of Providence Geeks I heard quite a bit about HTML5. But I have yet to find a decent how-to for it, nor a decent list of tags, etc. available. It's just a horrible mish-mash right now. And FTA, 21 years for full deployment. I said 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the last meet of Providence Geeks I heard quite a bit about HTML5 .
But I have yet to find a decent how-to for it , nor a decent list of tags , etc .
available. It 's just a horrible mish-mash right now .
And FTA , 21 years for full deployment .
I said 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the last meet of Providence Geeks I heard quite a bit about HTML5.
But I have yet to find a decent how-to for it, nor a decent list of tags, etc.
available. It's just a horrible mish-mash right now.
And FTA, 21 years for full deployment.
I said 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</id>
	<title>Vector animation?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order that HTML 5 may replace Flash on Newgrounds.com, what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order that HTML 5 may replace Flash on Newgrounds.com , what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order that HTML 5 may replace Flash on Newgrounds.com, what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658</id>
	<title>Er... standing up?  Really?</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1268073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Flash has been pushing people around? Seems to me its ubiquity is attributable to web developers (and, arguably, their clientele), and to its ability to deliver what was desired.

</p><p>Generally one "stands up" to bullies.  At best, Apple (and Google, and even Microsoft) have been "standing up" to web developers who don't want to learn something new, even if it is (presumably) better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Flash has been pushing people around ?
Seems to me its ubiquity is attributable to web developers ( and , arguably , their clientele ) , and to its ability to deliver what was desired .
Generally one " stands up " to bullies .
At best , Apple ( and Google , and even Microsoft ) have been " standing up " to web developers who do n't want to learn something new , even if it is ( presumably ) better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Flash has been pushing people around?
Seems to me its ubiquity is attributable to web developers (and, arguably, their clientele), and to its ability to deliver what was desired.
Generally one "stands up" to bullies.
At best, Apple (and Google, and even Microsoft) have been "standing up" to web developers who don't want to learn something new, even if it is (presumably) better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403068</id>
	<title>I understand the substance of your complaint</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268076060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its not really that much of a problem to read</p><p>(please click the next comment in this series for our exciting conclusion)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its not really that much of a problem to read ( please click the next comment in this series for our exciting conclusion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its not really that much of a problem to read(please click the next comment in this series for our exciting conclusion)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407300</id>
	<title>Re:Er... standing up? Really?</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1268050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Codec errors are pretty much a thing of the past, unless you are suffering from software patents. Browser detection is an utter nuisance, but one thing I would like to see in HTML5.1 is a novideo tag, which would act like noscript but is also used if the browser can't handle the codec as well, to allow formatting or a flash alternative, which a mere alt-text can't do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Codec errors are pretty much a thing of the past , unless you are suffering from software patents .
Browser detection is an utter nuisance , but one thing I would like to see in HTML5.1 is a novideo tag , which would act like noscript but is also used if the browser ca n't handle the codec as well , to allow formatting or a flash alternative , which a mere alt-text ca n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Codec errors are pretty much a thing of the past, unless you are suffering from software patents.
Browser detection is an utter nuisance, but one thing I would like to see in HTML5.1 is a novideo tag, which would act like noscript but is also used if the browser can't handle the codec as well, to allow formatting or a flash alternative, which a mere alt-text can't do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403212</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck on that.</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1268076600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how does HTML5 eliminate Silverlight? Microsoft have already starting implmeneting components of the HTML5, co-chaired the HTML5 working group in W3C since the beginnging and continues to participate in it.

both technologies can co-exist, and they are different.

Silverlight applications can be used for web, desktop or mobile applications. More importantly development is based around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, and includes powerful development tools, both from an artist and developer perspective. In addition some things are lacking in HTML 1) if you want to create a rich DVR-like experience with live video, you need a technology like Silverlight.  Silverlight's HD smooth streaming allows for picture in picture, pausing live video, rewinding, slow motion and downstreaming when bandwith slows down.  With smooth streaming, the buffering is minimized and you can jump to different spots of the video almost in real-time. 2) Content protection/DRM does not exist in the video tag in HTML. This will prevent some companies from posting videos in HTML5  3) Limited by JavaScript. Javascript does not provide a true parallelism, Javascript is a cross between a functional and object-oriented language, limits code sharing, slower than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. Finally one HTML5 may not prove better than plugins is different implementations of the standard and JavaScript (i.e incomplete) which we already see across all browsers...and this problem is not just Microsoft...Chrome,Safari, Firefox as well don't render certain pages the same. Using a framework can ensure standard viewing experience across any browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how does HTML5 eliminate Silverlight ?
Microsoft have already starting implmeneting components of the HTML5 , co-chaired the HTML5 working group in W3C since the beginnging and continues to participate in it .
both technologies can co-exist , and they are different .
Silverlight applications can be used for web , desktop or mobile applications .
More importantly development is based around .NET framework , and includes powerful development tools , both from an artist and developer perspective .
In addition some things are lacking in HTML 1 ) if you want to create a rich DVR-like experience with live video , you need a technology like Silverlight .
Silverlight 's HD smooth streaming allows for picture in picture , pausing live video , rewinding , slow motion and downstreaming when bandwith slows down .
With smooth streaming , the buffering is minimized and you can jump to different spots of the video almost in real-time .
2 ) Content protection/DRM does not exist in the video tag in HTML .
This will prevent some companies from posting videos in HTML5 3 ) Limited by JavaScript .
Javascript does not provide a true parallelism , Javascript is a cross between a functional and object-oriented language , limits code sharing , slower than .NET .
Finally one HTML5 may not prove better than plugins is different implementations of the standard and JavaScript ( i.e incomplete ) which we already see across all browsers...and this problem is not just Microsoft...Chrome,Safari , Firefox as well do n't render certain pages the same .
Using a framework can ensure standard viewing experience across any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how does HTML5 eliminate Silverlight?
Microsoft have already starting implmeneting components of the HTML5, co-chaired the HTML5 working group in W3C since the beginnging and continues to participate in it.
both technologies can co-exist, and they are different.
Silverlight applications can be used for web, desktop or mobile applications.
More importantly development is based around .NET framework, and includes powerful development tools, both from an artist and developer perspective.
In addition some things are lacking in HTML 1) if you want to create a rich DVR-like experience with live video, you need a technology like Silverlight.
Silverlight's HD smooth streaming allows for picture in picture, pausing live video, rewinding, slow motion and downstreaming when bandwith slows down.
With smooth streaming, the buffering is minimized and you can jump to different spots of the video almost in real-time.
2) Content protection/DRM does not exist in the video tag in HTML.
This will prevent some companies from posting videos in HTML5  3) Limited by JavaScript.
Javascript does not provide a true parallelism, Javascript is a cross between a functional and object-oriented language, limits code sharing, slower than .NET.
Finally one HTML5 may not prove better than plugins is different implementations of the standard and JavaScript (i.e incomplete) which we already see across all browsers...and this problem is not just Microsoft...Chrome,Safari, Firefox as well don't render certain pages the same.
Using a framework can ensure standard viewing experience across any browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038</id>
	<title>I'm probably the minority, but</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1268075880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly I'm not rooting for html 5 to replace flash/Silverlight for RIA. I don't like having to have 5 times as many tests in my matrix (one for each browser).  I don't like having to write ajax shims whenever I want to use the db from the client.  I don't like how hard it is to make reusable html controls that can't break other parts of the site.  I don't like how javascript scales up for larger projects... the list goes on.  I'm welcome some improvements to html+javascript and for using it to display documents.  That said, It simply isn't designed for RIA.  Flash/Silverlight are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I 'm not rooting for html 5 to replace flash/Silverlight for RIA .
I do n't like having to have 5 times as many tests in my matrix ( one for each browser ) .
I do n't like having to write ajax shims whenever I want to use the db from the client .
I do n't like how hard it is to make reusable html controls that ca n't break other parts of the site .
I do n't like how javascript scales up for larger projects... the list goes on .
I 'm welcome some improvements to html + javascript and for using it to display documents .
That said , It simply is n't designed for RIA .
Flash/Silverlight are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I'm not rooting for html 5 to replace flash/Silverlight for RIA.
I don't like having to have 5 times as many tests in my matrix (one for each browser).
I don't like having to write ajax shims whenever I want to use the db from the client.
I don't like how hard it is to make reusable html controls that can't break other parts of the site.
I don't like how javascript scales up for larger projects... the list goes on.
I'm welcome some improvements to html+javascript and for using it to display documents.
That said, It simply isn't designed for RIA.
Flash/Silverlight are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I think it has less to do with Apple standing up than it does with the fact that Flash didn't scale to mobile devices well.<br>Before the iPhone mobile friendly sites where few and far between. Once the iPhone started selling great guns more and more people moved to have their sites be mobile friendly.</p><p>Of course Apple isn't going to support Thedora so with that desision they are pushing HTML5 to be more proprietary than it could have been.<br>Of course Apple's choice is probably motivated by the fact that they already have hardware support for h.264 in their devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I think it has less to do with Apple standing up than it does with the fact that Flash did n't scale to mobile devices well.Before the iPhone mobile friendly sites where few and far between .
Once the iPhone started selling great guns more and more people moved to have their sites be mobile friendly.Of course Apple is n't going to support Thedora so with that desision they are pushing HTML5 to be more proprietary than it could have been.Of course Apple 's choice is probably motivated by the fact that they already have hardware support for h.264 in their devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I think it has less to do with Apple standing up than it does with the fact that Flash didn't scale to mobile devices well.Before the iPhone mobile friendly sites where few and far between.
Once the iPhone started selling great guns more and more people moved to have their sites be mobile friendly.Of course Apple isn't going to support Thedora so with that desision they are pushing HTML5 to be more proprietary than it could have been.Of course Apple's choice is probably motivated by the fact that they already have hardware support for h.264 in their devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403576</id>
	<title>Reality stopped by. He said 'hi'.</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1268078280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.</i></p><p>I've never worked for a company that gave me the time to do two versions of a site. The upshot is you always wind up with the lowest common denominator. Thus, no HTML5-based sites.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Unless you're willing to trust some javascript-based solution that enables HTML5, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates , Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites : a rich version for HTML5-enabled users , and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.I 've never worked for a company that gave me the time to do two versions of a site .
The upshot is you always wind up with the lowest common denominator .
Thus , no HTML5-based sites .
: ( Unless you 're willing to trust some javascript-based solution that enables HTML5 , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.I've never worked for a company that gave me the time to do two versions of a site.
The upshot is you always wind up with the lowest common denominator.
Thus, no HTML5-based sites.
:(Unless you're willing to trust some javascript-based solution that enables HTML5, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403990</id>
	<title>Document or application</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268080020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to say, using HTML for something other than displaying information still feels like... you're trying to make an application out of a word document. Think about it, we're desperately trying to move away from the desktop but the framework we're using is primarily a framework for designing text and then clobber on tons of scripting to get it to do something else. Sure, we can do fancy stuff with it, but there's no consistency and everyone reinvents the wheel every time there's a need for something you'd take for granted in a desktop app that simply doesn't exist in pure HTML. Some might say that's the beauty of it, I call it a god damn mess that I've been fighting with for the past 10 years. If something like unprivileged <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">XUL</a> [mozilla.org] would have caught on, we could have had <a href="http://www.faser.net/mab/chrome/content/mab.xul" title="faser.net" rel="nofollow">some</a> [faser.net] <a href="http://robin.sourceforge.net/programs/xulmine/xulmine.xul" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">interesting</a> [sourceforge.net] <a href="http://193.180.78.90/.demo/nx2/ui/xul-login.php" title="193.180.78.90" rel="nofollow">apps</a> [193.180.78.90] (links work in Firefox only) today. Sadly, we're still trying to make desktop applications out of documents, and I don't see HTML5 changing that. Granted, that we can run our applications distributed, centralized with a backend database and zero install, still make it an ideal platform to work with - but it doesn't change the fact that the markup language we're using is a hack of a tool. And don't get me started on "AJAX"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to say , using HTML for something other than displaying information still feels like... you 're trying to make an application out of a word document .
Think about it , we 're desperately trying to move away from the desktop but the framework we 're using is primarily a framework for designing text and then clobber on tons of scripting to get it to do something else .
Sure , we can do fancy stuff with it , but there 's no consistency and everyone reinvents the wheel every time there 's a need for something you 'd take for granted in a desktop app that simply does n't exist in pure HTML .
Some might say that 's the beauty of it , I call it a god damn mess that I 've been fighting with for the past 10 years .
If something like unprivileged XUL [ mozilla.org ] would have caught on , we could have had some [ faser.net ] interesting [ sourceforge.net ] apps [ 193.180.78.90 ] ( links work in Firefox only ) today .
Sadly , we 're still trying to make desktop applications out of documents , and I do n't see HTML5 changing that .
Granted , that we can run our applications distributed , centralized with a backend database and zero install , still make it an ideal platform to work with - but it does n't change the fact that the markup language we 're using is a hack of a tool .
And do n't get me started on " AJAX " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to say, using HTML for something other than displaying information still feels like... you're trying to make an application out of a word document.
Think about it, we're desperately trying to move away from the desktop but the framework we're using is primarily a framework for designing text and then clobber on tons of scripting to get it to do something else.
Sure, we can do fancy stuff with it, but there's no consistency and everyone reinvents the wheel every time there's a need for something you'd take for granted in a desktop app that simply doesn't exist in pure HTML.
Some might say that's the beauty of it, I call it a god damn mess that I've been fighting with for the past 10 years.
If something like unprivileged XUL [mozilla.org] would have caught on, we could have had some [faser.net] interesting [sourceforge.net] apps [193.180.78.90] (links work in Firefox only) today.
Sadly, we're still trying to make desktop applications out of documents, and I don't see HTML5 changing that.
Granted, that we can run our applications distributed, centralized with a backend database and zero install, still make it an ideal platform to work with - but it doesn't change the fact that the markup language we're using is a hack of a tool.
And don't get me started on "AJAX"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403404</id>
	<title>Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is OLD news. I've been using "&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;" on all new sites at least the last year now, and any web developers who aren't investigating and/or anticipating HTML5 now that it is being implemented in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, (IE9? not sure) are really just paving the way for their successors. With Gears, Google has shown off a bunch of these new features (most interestingly IMO the script-accessible local data store) and now that they're taking Gears off the market (not that it had a sizable market to speak of), I think it's a sign we should all begin to make use of the new stuff (still with graceful fallback, of course).</p><p>I'm not <i>expecting</i> anything from HTML5, because it <b>has already lived up to my expectations</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is OLD news .
I 've been using " " on all new sites at least the last year now , and any web developers who are n't investigating and/or anticipating HTML5 now that it is being implemented in Firefox , Chrome , Opera , Safari , ( IE9 ?
not sure ) are really just paving the way for their successors .
With Gears , Google has shown off a bunch of these new features ( most interestingly IMO the script-accessible local data store ) and now that they 're taking Gears off the market ( not that it had a sizable market to speak of ) , I think it 's a sign we should all begin to make use of the new stuff ( still with graceful fallback , of course ) .I 'm not expecting anything from HTML5 , because it has already lived up to my expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is OLD news.
I've been using "" on all new sites at least the last year now, and any web developers who aren't investigating and/or anticipating HTML5 now that it is being implemented in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, (IE9?
not sure) are really just paving the way for their successors.
With Gears, Google has shown off a bunch of these new features (most interestingly IMO the script-accessible local data store) and now that they're taking Gears off the market (not that it had a sizable market to speak of), I think it's a sign we should all begin to make use of the new stuff (still with graceful fallback, of course).I'm not expecting anything from HTML5, because it has already lived up to my expectations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403136</id>
	<title>Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268076360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has no beginning can have no end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has no beginning can have no end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has no beginning can have no end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403612</id>
	<title>The IE elephant in the room</title>
	<author>billtom</author>
	<datestamp>1268078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to get too excited about new web stuff because as a web developer, the answer to "when can I start using the new stuff in my sites" is always "when 90\%+ of my visitors have browsers that support it."</p><p>And given the excruciatingly slow rates of: IE losing market share, MS implementing new technologies in IE, and users upgrading to newer versions of IE; the answer to that 90\%+ question for HTML5 will be measured in years from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to get too excited about new web stuff because as a web developer , the answer to " when can I start using the new stuff in my sites " is always " when 90 \ % + of my visitors have browsers that support it .
" And given the excruciatingly slow rates of : IE losing market share , MS implementing new technologies in IE , and users upgrading to newer versions of IE ; the answer to that 90 \ % + question for HTML5 will be measured in years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to get too excited about new web stuff because as a web developer, the answer to "when can I start using the new stuff in my sites" is always "when 90\%+ of my visitors have browsers that support it.
"And given the excruciatingly slow rates of: IE losing market share, MS implementing new technologies in IE, and users upgrading to newer versions of IE; the answer to that 90\%+ question for HTML5 will be measured in years from now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402858</id>
	<title>Flash/SL are still the only way to share a/v</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm glad to see movement towards non-prop web video playback, how else (besides Flash/Silverlight) can you do online interactive seminars/meetings with shared audio/video between multiple users (let alone screen/application sharing)?  While the HTML5 spec seems to cover video playback pretty well, I don't see an standard-based specification for sharing in streamed audio/video between multiple users (but maybe I'm overlooking something?).</p><p>And no this isn't about "chat roulette", it's about remote meeting/collaboration functionalities that are increasingly important for businesses and online/remote learning, where the \_least\_ proprietary solutions are currently Flash-based on the client end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm glad to see movement towards non-prop web video playback , how else ( besides Flash/Silverlight ) can you do online interactive seminars/meetings with shared audio/video between multiple users ( let alone screen/application sharing ) ?
While the HTML5 spec seems to cover video playback pretty well , I do n't see an standard-based specification for sharing in streamed audio/video between multiple users ( but maybe I 'm overlooking something ?
) .And no this is n't about " chat roulette " , it 's about remote meeting/collaboration functionalities that are increasingly important for businesses and online/remote learning , where the \ _least \ _ proprietary solutions are currently Flash-based on the client end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm glad to see movement towards non-prop web video playback, how else (besides Flash/Silverlight) can you do online interactive seminars/meetings with shared audio/video between multiple users (let alone screen/application sharing)?
While the HTML5 spec seems to cover video playback pretty well, I don't see an standard-based specification for sharing in streamed audio/video between multiple users (but maybe I'm overlooking something?
).And no this isn't about "chat roulette", it's about remote meeting/collaboration functionalities that are increasingly important for businesses and online/remote learning, where the \_least\_ proprietary solutions are currently Flash-based on the client end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404260</id>
	<title>I work for Adobe and....</title>
	<author>nickull</author>
	<datestamp>1268081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you are right.  The way Flash (the swf format only, not the whole platform) was written circa 2003, it wasn't optimized to go to mobile devices.  There were some issues and technical hurdles to get around. Some of them were simple (like stopping FP instances that are not in the visible part of the screen) or simply reducing the frame rates of flash applications that are using battery power when they are not in focus).  Some required much more thinking such as form fields receiving focus when the tab is hit from an HTML form element above a flash form element).  To scale to mobile was a challenge which has been met with the Flash PLayer 10.1.  The Google Nexus 1 phone (which I own) does a great job of running the full version of Flash (not Flash Lite).  The FP 10.1 has *huge* technical improvements from previous versions

Adobe is full on excited about HTML 5 too.  There are some really cool possibilities about using HTML 5 features side by side with Flash.  Serge Jespers did a great job of showing this on his blog late last week:

<a href="http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/03/05/the-html5-flash-marriage-geolocation/" title="webkitchen.be" rel="nofollow">http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/03/05/the-html5-flash-marriage-geolocation/</a> [webkitchen.be]

The fact is that HTML being updated is not something everyone asked for, but in it's execution, there are some obvious features that I am glad to see such as the Video element.  I do share some concerns about how more advanced API's get implemented (such as the document.evaluate(); API) for complex XSLT processing but hope the industry will figure it out.

DN
" any technology can be used for good or for evil.  The only question is how you decide to use your coding time in between " - Gandalf</htmltext>
<tokenext>you are right .
The way Flash ( the swf format only , not the whole platform ) was written circa 2003 , it was n't optimized to go to mobile devices .
There were some issues and technical hurdles to get around .
Some of them were simple ( like stopping FP instances that are not in the visible part of the screen ) or simply reducing the frame rates of flash applications that are using battery power when they are not in focus ) .
Some required much more thinking such as form fields receiving focus when the tab is hit from an HTML form element above a flash form element ) .
To scale to mobile was a challenge which has been met with the Flash PLayer 10.1 .
The Google Nexus 1 phone ( which I own ) does a great job of running the full version of Flash ( not Flash Lite ) .
The FP 10.1 has * huge * technical improvements from previous versions Adobe is full on excited about HTML 5 too .
There are some really cool possibilities about using HTML 5 features side by side with Flash .
Serge Jespers did a great job of showing this on his blog late last week : http : //www.webkitchen.be/2010/03/05/the-html5-flash-marriage-geolocation/ [ webkitchen.be ] The fact is that HTML being updated is not something everyone asked for , but in it 's execution , there are some obvious features that I am glad to see such as the Video element .
I do share some concerns about how more advanced API 's get implemented ( such as the document.evaluate ( ) ; API ) for complex XSLT processing but hope the industry will figure it out .
DN " any technology can be used for good or for evil .
The only question is how you decide to use your coding time in between " - Gandalf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are right.
The way Flash (the swf format only, not the whole platform) was written circa 2003, it wasn't optimized to go to mobile devices.
There were some issues and technical hurdles to get around.
Some of them were simple (like stopping FP instances that are not in the visible part of the screen) or simply reducing the frame rates of flash applications that are using battery power when they are not in focus).
Some required much more thinking such as form fields receiving focus when the tab is hit from an HTML form element above a flash form element).
To scale to mobile was a challenge which has been met with the Flash PLayer 10.1.
The Google Nexus 1 phone (which I own) does a great job of running the full version of Flash (not Flash Lite).
The FP 10.1 has *huge* technical improvements from previous versions

Adobe is full on excited about HTML 5 too.
There are some really cool possibilities about using HTML 5 features side by side with Flash.
Serge Jespers did a great job of showing this on his blog late last week:

http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/03/05/the-html5-flash-marriage-geolocation/ [webkitchen.be]

The fact is that HTML being updated is not something everyone asked for, but in it's execution, there are some obvious features that I am glad to see such as the Video element.
I do share some concerns about how more advanced API's get implemented (such as the document.evaluate(); API) for complex XSLT processing but hope the industry will figure it out.
DN
" any technology can be used for good or for evil.
The only question is how you decide to use your coding time in between " - Gandalf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403076</id>
	<title>Re:What are the security risk?</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1268076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a perfectly valid question and a point I don't see raised very often, and something I immediately think of when I hear the word 'overhaul'.  Why is this marked troll?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a perfectly valid question and a point I do n't see raised very often , and something I immediately think of when I hear the word 'overhaul' .
Why is this marked troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a perfectly valid question and a point I don't see raised very often, and something I immediately think of when I hear the word 'overhaul'.
Why is this marked troll?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403406</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268077440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.</p></div><p>This is so wrong it's not even funny. MPEG LA doesn't own the H.264 patents.  MPEG LA is a firm that licenses the patent pool to H.264 and numerous other technologies.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.</p></div><p>Since Apple owns patents to H.264 I doubt you are going to see them doing either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?</p> </div><p>Why are you surprised by this?  Apple is a patent holder to H.264.  Why would they want to support a video codec that is a rival to a technology in which they hold patents?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content , via the sweet deal with MPEG LA ( who owns the H.264 patent ) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.This is so wrong it 's not even funny .
MPEG LA does n't own the H.264 patents .
MPEG LA is a firm that licenses the patent pool to H.264 and numerous other technologies.If Apple really had our best interests at heart , they would be either 1 ) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard , or 2 ) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably " better " codec.Since Apple owns patents to H.264 I doubt you are going to see them doing either.In fact , speaking of an unencumbered codec , have you noticed that Safari , by deliberate choice , does not support Ogg Theora ?
Why are you surprised by this ?
Apple is a patent holder to H.264 .
Why would they want to support a video codec that is a rival to a technology in which they hold patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.This is so wrong it's not even funny.
MPEG LA doesn't own the H.264 patents.
MPEG LA is a firm that licenses the patent pool to H.264 and numerous other technologies.If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.Since Apple owns patents to H.264 I doubt you are going to see them doing either.In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?
Why are you surprised by this?
Apple is a patent holder to H.264.
Why would they want to support a video codec that is a rival to a technology in which they hold patents?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31413392</id>
	<title>Anti-enabler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why enable people using outdated browsers? I would rather see a site switch to HTML5 and give me and error screen with links to browsers that support it than see the developers waste time and money keeping an obsolete site up and running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why enable people using outdated browsers ?
I would rather see a site switch to HTML5 and give me and error screen with links to browsers that support it than see the developers waste time and money keeping an obsolete site up and running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why enable people using outdated browsers?
I would rather see a site switch to HTML5 and give me and error screen with links to browsers that support it than see the developers waste time and money keeping an obsolete site up and running.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402850</id>
	<title>Good luck on that.</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1268074920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML -- one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight.</p></div><p>Good luck on getting Microsoft to sign off on that for IE. They are unlikly to incorporate a standard that eliminates one or more of their "technologies".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5 , outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML -- one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight.Good luck on getting Microsoft to sign off on that for IE .
They are unlikly to incorporate a standard that eliminates one or more of their " technologies " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML -- one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight.Good luck on getting Microsoft to sign off on that for IE.
They are unlikly to incorporate a standard that eliminates one or more of their "technologies".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403378</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't. A solid IDE for replacing the Flash IDE for svg does not exist. Illu is okay to make an svg but to animate it, use it in a simulation or interaction you need a solid IDE. The lack of one is the reason svg has been out in the wilderness for years. The depth of controls that the FLash IDE, Flash Builder IDE, and Flash Catalyst IDE are missing in the html5/svg/javascript world when your doing that kind of work</p><p>The best thing for html5/svg/javascript coding is to have the Flash IDE add a cross compiler where it would output that from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fla file. None of the designers/animators/user experience artists will open a pure code view to do all their work. That won't happen until the standards get closer to finalized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't .
A solid IDE for replacing the Flash IDE for svg does not exist .
Illu is okay to make an svg but to animate it , use it in a simulation or interaction you need a solid IDE .
The lack of one is the reason svg has been out in the wilderness for years .
The depth of controls that the FLash IDE , Flash Builder IDE , and Flash Catalyst IDE are missing in the html5/svg/javascript world when your doing that kind of workThe best thing for html5/svg/javascript coding is to have the Flash IDE add a cross compiler where it would output that from the .fla file .
None of the designers/animators/user experience artists will open a pure code view to do all their work .
That wo n't happen until the standards get closer to finalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't.
A solid IDE for replacing the Flash IDE for svg does not exist.
Illu is okay to make an svg but to animate it, use it in a simulation or interaction you need a solid IDE.
The lack of one is the reason svg has been out in the wilderness for years.
The depth of controls that the FLash IDE, Flash Builder IDE, and Flash Catalyst IDE are missing in the html5/svg/javascript world when your doing that kind of workThe best thing for html5/svg/javascript coding is to have the Flash IDE add a cross compiler where it would output that from the .fla file.
None of the designers/animators/user experience artists will open a pure code view to do all their work.
That won't happen until the standards get closer to finalized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403022</id>
	<title>Re:Vector animation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?</p></div><p>All right, I give up.  What other program is as bug-riddled, bloated, unreliable, and completely ill-suited to the task of making vector animations as the Adobe Flash CS series?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series ? All right , I give up .
What other program is as bug-riddled , bloated , unreliable , and completely ill-suited to the task of making vector animations as the Adobe Flash CS series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?All right, I give up.
What other program is as bug-riddled, bloated, unreliable, and completely ill-suited to the task of making vector animations as the Adobe Flash CS series?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31410924</id>
	<title>Developers anywhere?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one to see a slight difference between writing a site in a markup language and implementing a full business application in C# ? This is just ridiculous!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one to see a slight difference between writing a site in a markup language and implementing a full business application in C # ?
This is just ridiculous ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one to see a slight difference between writing a site in a markup language and implementing a full business application in C# ?
This is just ridiculous!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404586</id>
	<title>HTML5 canvas tag graph library demo</title>
	<author>VitaminB52</author>
	<datestamp>1268039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a nice demo of what to expect from using then HTML5 CANVAS tag have a look at <a href="http://www.rgraph.net/" title="rgraph.net">http://www.rgraph.net/</a> [rgraph.net]
<br>
BTW: there's only limited HTML5 support in IE8, so use a better browser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a nice demo of what to expect from using then HTML5 CANVAS tag have a look at http : //www.rgraph.net/ [ rgraph.net ] BTW : there 's only limited HTML5 support in IE8 , so use a better browser .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a nice demo of what to expect from using then HTML5 CANVAS tag have a look at http://www.rgraph.net/ [rgraph.net]

BTW: there's only limited HTML5 support in IE8, so use a better browser ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407350</id>
	<title>Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashes</p></div></blockquote><p>A browser plugin crashes the operating system?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashesA browser plugin crashes the operating system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashesA browser plugin crashes the operating system?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404152</id>
	<title>brittle HTML5 implementation</title>
	<author>Dr Herbert West</author>
	<datestamp>1268080920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up!
I'm not looking forward to years of brittle HTML5 implementation on every damn "browser of the week" when building apps and games. At least Flash (don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of its closed implementation either) works the same in all platforms that it runs on-- I develop for kiosks and museum exhibits as well. Why does everyone think implementing an HTML5 standard will result in all the crazy different browsers using it in a standard way?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
I 'm not looking forward to years of brittle HTML5 implementation on every damn " browser of the week " when building apps and games .
At least Flash ( do n't get me wrong , I do n't like a lot of its closed implementation either ) works the same in all platforms that it runs on-- I develop for kiosks and museum exhibits as well .
Why does everyone think implementing an HTML5 standard will result in all the crazy different browsers using it in a standard way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!
I'm not looking forward to years of brittle HTML5 implementation on every damn "browser of the week" when building apps and games.
At least Flash (don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of its closed implementation either) works the same in all platforms that it runs on-- I develop for kiosks and museum exhibits as well.
Why does everyone think implementing an HTML5 standard will result in all the crazy different browsers using it in a standard way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407190</id>
	<title>The battle is lost, my friend.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1268049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's not kid ourselves. Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted. They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.</i> </p><p>"Following is a list of <b>licensors</b> of patents included in the AVC Patent Portfolio License:"</p><p>Apple.</p><p>Followed by - in alphabetical order - about twenty or so of the biggest names in tech.</p><p>Fujitsu. Hitachi. Microsoft. Mitsubishi. NTT. Panasonic. Philips. Samsung. Siemens. Sony. Toshiba. You get the idea. <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx" title="mpegla.com">AVC/H.264 Licensors</a> [mpegla.com] </p><p>There are <b>768</b> corporate licensees for H.264. Heavyweights, damn near all of them.</p><p> <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx" title="mpegla.com">AVC/H.264 Licensees</a> [mpegla.com] </p><p>Canonical is on board. Japan is on board. China is on board. 3M. HBO. Honeywell. Lockheed Martin. Nikon. Nintendo....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not kid ourselves .
Apple is n't trying to pull people away from Flash because they 're big-hearted .
They 're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content , via the sweet deal with MPEG LA ( who owns the H.264 patent ) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market .
" Following is a list of licensors of patents included in the AVC Patent Portfolio License : " Apple.Followed by - in alphabetical order - about twenty or so of the biggest names in tech.Fujitsu .
Hitachi. Microsoft .
Mitsubishi. NTT .
Panasonic. Philips .
Samsung. Siemens .
Sony. Toshiba .
You get the idea .
AVC/H.264 Licensors [ mpegla.com ] There are 768 corporate licensees for H.264 .
Heavyweights , damn near all of them .
AVC/H.264 Licensees [ mpegla.com ] Canonical is on board .
Japan is on board .
China is on board .
3M. HBO .
Honeywell. Lockheed Martin .
Nikon. Nintendo... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not kid ourselves.
Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted.
They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.
"Following is a list of licensors of patents included in the AVC Patent Portfolio License:"Apple.Followed by - in alphabetical order - about twenty or so of the biggest names in tech.Fujitsu.
Hitachi. Microsoft.
Mitsubishi. NTT.
Panasonic. Philips.
Samsung. Siemens.
Sony. Toshiba.
You get the idea.
AVC/H.264 Licensors [mpegla.com] There are 768 corporate licensees for H.264.
Heavyweights, damn near all of them.
AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com] Canonical is on board.
Japan is on board.
China is on board.
3M. HBO.
Honeywell. Lockheed Martin.
Nikon. Nintendo....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31429332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31409356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31406064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31408570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1614222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403484
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31412670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31553182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31405114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31409356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31407744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31429332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31402950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1614222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31403038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31406064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31408570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1614222.31404152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
