<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_1659223</id>
	<title>Key Web App Standard Approaches Consensus</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268504760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun tips a report up at CNet which begins:
<i>"Browser makers, grappling with outmoded technology and a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications, have begun <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685\_3-20000376-264.html">converging on a seemingly basic but very important element of cloud computing</a>. That ability is called local storage, and the new mechanism is called <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/">Indexed DB</a>. Indexed DB, proposed by Oracle and initially called WebSimpleDB, is largely just a prototype at this stage, not something Web programmers can use yet. But already it's won endorsements from Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google, and together, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent of the usage on the Net today. 'Indexed DB is interesting to both Firefox and Microsoft, so if we get to the point where we prototype it and want to ship it, it will have very wide availability,' said Chris Blizzard, director of evangelism for Mozilla. ... Microsoft <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/03/09/Working-with-the-HTML5-Community.aspx">publicly endorsed Indexed DB on its IE blog</a>: 'Together with Mozilla, we're excited about a new design for local storage called Indexed DB. We think this is a great solution for the Web,' said program manager Adrian Bateman."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun tips a report up at CNet which begins : " Browser makers , grappling with outmoded technology and a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications , have begun converging on a seemingly basic but very important element of cloud computing .
That ability is called local storage , and the new mechanism is called Indexed DB .
Indexed DB , proposed by Oracle and initially called WebSimpleDB , is largely just a prototype at this stage , not something Web programmers can use yet .
But already it 's won endorsements from Microsoft , Mozilla , and Google , and together , Internet Explorer , Firefox , and Chrome account for more than 90 percent of the usage on the Net today .
'Indexed DB is interesting to both Firefox and Microsoft , so if we get to the point where we prototype it and want to ship it , it will have very wide availability, ' said Chris Blizzard , director of evangelism for Mozilla .
... Microsoft publicly endorsed Indexed DB on its IE blog : 'Together with Mozilla , we 're excited about a new design for local storage called Indexed DB .
We think this is a great solution for the Web, ' said program manager Adrian Bateman .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun tips a report up at CNet which begins:
"Browser makers, grappling with outmoded technology and a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications, have begun converging on a seemingly basic but very important element of cloud computing.
That ability is called local storage, and the new mechanism is called Indexed DB.
Indexed DB, proposed by Oracle and initially called WebSimpleDB, is largely just a prototype at this stage, not something Web programmers can use yet.
But already it's won endorsements from Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google, and together, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent of the usage on the Net today.
'Indexed DB is interesting to both Firefox and Microsoft, so if we get to the point where we prototype it and want to ship it, it will have very wide availability,' said Chris Blizzard, director of evangelism for Mozilla.
... Microsoft publicly endorsed Indexed DB on its IE blog: 'Together with Mozilla, we're excited about a new design for local storage called Indexed DB.
We think this is a great solution for the Web,' said program manager Adrian Bateman.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344</id>
	<title>The Web is not the Net.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent<br>&gt; of the usage on the Net...</p><p>The Web is not the Net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...Internet Explorer , Firefox , and Chrome account for more than 90 percent &gt; of the usage on the Net...The Web is not the Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent&gt; of the usage on the Net...The Web is not the Net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465540</id>
	<title>I'm glad Microsoft is involved in the early stages</title>
	<author>Hero Zzyzzx</author>
	<datestamp>1268510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so they have plenty of time to plan the (seemingly) minor but maddeningly frustrating ways they'll deviate from the standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so they have plenty of time to plan the ( seemingly ) minor but maddeningly frustrating ways they 'll deviate from the standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so they have plenty of time to plan the (seemingly) minor but maddeningly frustrating ways they'll deviate from the standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465320</id>
	<title>Piled Higher and Deeper</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268508540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This DB is simply tweaking the edge, nowhere near addressing the real fundamental problem of web app.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This DB is simply tweaking the edge , nowhere near addressing the real fundamental problem of web app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This DB is simply tweaking the edge, nowhere near addressing the real fundamental problem of web app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470066</id>
	<title>Re:The Web is better</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268505540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not "nostalgic" about the benefits of client-server apps, they are what business needs for head-down handling of data in a manner that does not require a 50,000 line mashup of javascript, html, xhtml, xml and bloody css.</p><p>Browser implementations are worse then inconsistent, they are insane.  One does it just every so slightly different then the other and your app fails in the land of the web browser.</p><p>But not to worry, the project for the application browser has begun.  It will present a clean well defined environment for an application to run on any platform <b>consistently</b> without the insanity of html/css.</p><p>Define a control in your source and it will appear where you want it and it will be a <b>native</b> control, regardless of it being instantiated on Gnome, KDE, Cocoa or Windows.</p><p>Both MDI and SDI applications will be supported.</p><p>Authentication will be certificate based as well as by name and password.</p><p>The web is far from unified and 15 minutes poking around the web will show you just how unified it is not, site to site page to page things fall apart as far as consistency and uniformity.</p><p>The DOM is still a mess, it is slow and browsers to not take having their inner-html poked at very well at all.</p><p>AJAX  aka httpRequest is lousy because you cannot control what the bloody user does.  Run it synch and the users complain it freezes up the browser, run it asynch and the back button can destroy the entire context of what you are doing and completely invalidate whatever data you have fetched at that moment in the middle of fetching it and no one has found a way around that so you have to count on the user not being stupid ( good luck with that one ).</p><p>A Modal dialogs are <b>required</b> from time to time but unfortunately the javascript alert function is so horrible that you can't even change its font, much less make it bold or even change the graphic.</p><p>We have to wait until version fucking 5 to be able to tell a forms field it is <b>required</b> and <i>maybe</i> prevent the submit method from firing?!?!?!  And until 5 is ubiquitous we cannot even count on that.  But hey who knows they might actually get it together enough by then to actually transmit the fact that a check box is NOT bloody checked instead of having to either do kludges like hidden fields or have to write backend code to check to see which ones didn't come back!"</p><p>Personally I want a reliable, predictable and more importantly a <b>controllable</b> application browser that does not have some ding dong browsing some virus ridden, malware delivering web site finding yet another vulnerability to go across sessions to rape the mission critial data the user is "working" on while they are watching porn.</p><p>The bottom line is this.  With vagaries of browsers, apache, jvm's, servlet enigines and the like it is a monumental pin in the ass to develop "applications" for the web.  And as hard as they try it is just never going to work as well as something presents native controls, using native interfaces and talks directly to the data source not through 5 different application frameworks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not " nostalgic " about the benefits of client-server apps , they are what business needs for head-down handling of data in a manner that does not require a 50,000 line mashup of javascript , html , xhtml , xml and bloody css.Browser implementations are worse then inconsistent , they are insane .
One does it just every so slightly different then the other and your app fails in the land of the web browser.But not to worry , the project for the application browser has begun .
It will present a clean well defined environment for an application to run on any platform consistently without the insanity of html/css.Define a control in your source and it will appear where you want it and it will be a native control , regardless of it being instantiated on Gnome , KDE , Cocoa or Windows.Both MDI and SDI applications will be supported.Authentication will be certificate based as well as by name and password.The web is far from unified and 15 minutes poking around the web will show you just how unified it is not , site to site page to page things fall apart as far as consistency and uniformity.The DOM is still a mess , it is slow and browsers to not take having their inner-html poked at very well at all.AJAX aka httpRequest is lousy because you can not control what the bloody user does .
Run it synch and the users complain it freezes up the browser , run it asynch and the back button can destroy the entire context of what you are doing and completely invalidate whatever data you have fetched at that moment in the middle of fetching it and no one has found a way around that so you have to count on the user not being stupid ( good luck with that one ) .A Modal dialogs are required from time to time but unfortunately the javascript alert function is so horrible that you ca n't even change its font , much less make it bold or even change the graphic.We have to wait until version fucking 5 to be able to tell a forms field it is required and maybe prevent the submit method from firing ? ! ? ! ? !
And until 5 is ubiquitous we can not even count on that .
But hey who knows they might actually get it together enough by then to actually transmit the fact that a check box is NOT bloody checked instead of having to either do kludges like hidden fields or have to write backend code to check to see which ones did n't come back !
" Personally I want a reliable , predictable and more importantly a controllable application browser that does not have some ding dong browsing some virus ridden , malware delivering web site finding yet another vulnerability to go across sessions to rape the mission critial data the user is " working " on while they are watching porn.The bottom line is this .
With vagaries of browsers , apache , jvm 's , servlet enigines and the like it is a monumental pin in the ass to develop " applications " for the web .
And as hard as they try it is just never going to work as well as something presents native controls , using native interfaces and talks directly to the data source not through 5 different application frameworks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not "nostalgic" about the benefits of client-server apps, they are what business needs for head-down handling of data in a manner that does not require a 50,000 line mashup of javascript, html, xhtml, xml and bloody css.Browser implementations are worse then inconsistent, they are insane.
One does it just every so slightly different then the other and your app fails in the land of the web browser.But not to worry, the project for the application browser has begun.
It will present a clean well defined environment for an application to run on any platform consistently without the insanity of html/css.Define a control in your source and it will appear where you want it and it will be a native control, regardless of it being instantiated on Gnome, KDE, Cocoa or Windows.Both MDI and SDI applications will be supported.Authentication will be certificate based as well as by name and password.The web is far from unified and 15 minutes poking around the web will show you just how unified it is not, site to site page to page things fall apart as far as consistency and uniformity.The DOM is still a mess, it is slow and browsers to not take having their inner-html poked at very well at all.AJAX  aka httpRequest is lousy because you cannot control what the bloody user does.
Run it synch and the users complain it freezes up the browser, run it asynch and the back button can destroy the entire context of what you are doing and completely invalidate whatever data you have fetched at that moment in the middle of fetching it and no one has found a way around that so you have to count on the user not being stupid ( good luck with that one ).A Modal dialogs are required from time to time but unfortunately the javascript alert function is so horrible that you can't even change its font, much less make it bold or even change the graphic.We have to wait until version fucking 5 to be able to tell a forms field it is required and maybe prevent the submit method from firing?!?!?!
And until 5 is ubiquitous we cannot even count on that.
But hey who knows they might actually get it together enough by then to actually transmit the fact that a check box is NOT bloody checked instead of having to either do kludges like hidden fields or have to write backend code to check to see which ones didn't come back!
"Personally I want a reliable, predictable and more importantly a controllable application browser that does not have some ding dong browsing some virus ridden, malware delivering web site finding yet another vulnerability to go across sessions to rape the mission critial data the user is "working" on while they are watching porn.The bottom line is this.
With vagaries of browsers, apache, jvm's, servlet enigines and the like it is a monumental pin in the ass to develop "applications" for the web.
And as hard as they try it is just never going to work as well as something presents native controls, using native interfaces and talks directly to the data source not through 5 different application frameworks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466850</id>
	<title>Re:Slowly reinventing the wheel in the browser</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1268476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the most part, but Google Office has some advantages. Multiple people editing the same document at the same time can be really powerful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the most part , but Google Office has some advantages .
Multiple people editing the same document at the same time can be really powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the most part, but Google Office has some advantages.
Multiple people editing the same document at the same time can be really powerful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470314</id>
	<title>Re:The Web is better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um.. the web is still client server.. you still have cycles running on the server and on the client.  the only thing different is that the user loses control over the software he depends on. he's now dependent on the whims of the serverop/developer who can now gleefully sell him a  monthly subscription to a software the user paid for once back in the 90s. don't forget the isp as well, he'll want a cut of the action if he can get it.  While some of the 'social' aspects have a bit of value, they are not the primary motivator for this shift.  Control is.  Once the resources (cpu cycles/storage) are centralized, they can be whittled down to the LCD 'tolerable use' that so many other things have already gone down. I guess I don't want my computing to be limited to the mindset of the average soccer mom and her knee jerk tendencies. I suppose you're right in that it's inevitable, but I'm not happy about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um.. the web is still client server.. you still have cycles running on the server and on the client .
the only thing different is that the user loses control over the software he depends on .
he 's now dependent on the whims of the serverop/developer who can now gleefully sell him a monthly subscription to a software the user paid for once back in the 90s .
do n't forget the isp as well , he 'll want a cut of the action if he can get it .
While some of the 'social ' aspects have a bit of value , they are not the primary motivator for this shift .
Control is .
Once the resources ( cpu cycles/storage ) are centralized , they can be whittled down to the LCD 'tolerable use ' that so many other things have already gone down .
I guess I do n't want my computing to be limited to the mindset of the average soccer mom and her knee jerk tendencies .
I suppose you 're right in that it 's inevitable , but I 'm not happy about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um.. the web is still client server.. you still have cycles running on the server and on the client.
the only thing different is that the user loses control over the software he depends on.
he's now dependent on the whims of the serverop/developer who can now gleefully sell him a  monthly subscription to a software the user paid for once back in the 90s.
don't forget the isp as well, he'll want a cut of the action if he can get it.
While some of the 'social' aspects have a bit of value, they are not the primary motivator for this shift.
Control is.
Once the resources (cpu cycles/storage) are centralized, they can be whittled down to the LCD 'tolerable use' that so many other things have already gone down.
I guess I don't want my computing to be limited to the mindset of the average soccer mom and her knee jerk tendencies.
I suppose you're right in that it's inevitable, but I'm not happy about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465404</id>
	<title>That sounds great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b> <em>One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer is that there isn't a way to allow users to save settings on their local computer.  Granted, offering this type of capability creates the risk that users will have local settings that they will want to carry with them to other computers but cannot, however maybe something can be done about that in the web clients allowing peer2peer transfer of settings over an authenticated connection.  Of course, the next frontier is to make client-client connections simple and easy without requiring a server intermediary as is needed now because of NATting and ISP blockades.</em> </b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer is that there is n't a way to allow users to save settings on their local computer .
Granted , offering this type of capability creates the risk that users will have local settings that they will want to carry with them to other computers but can not , however maybe something can be done about that in the web clients allowing peer2peer transfer of settings over an authenticated connection .
Of course , the next frontier is to make client-client connections simple and easy without requiring a server intermediary as is needed now because of NATting and ISP blockades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer is that there isn't a way to allow users to save settings on their local computer.
Granted, offering this type of capability creates the risk that users will have local settings that they will want to carry with them to other computers but cannot, however maybe something can be done about that in the web clients allowing peer2peer transfer of settings over an authenticated connection.
Of course, the next frontier is to make client-client connections simple and easy without requiring a server intermediary as is needed now because of NATting and ISP blockades.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465754</id>
	<title>Re:That sounds great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer.</p></div><p>One of the biggest frustrations I have with web developers is that they always tend to mess with things they shouldn't, like the fact that you seem to think it's necessary to alter the text formatting of all your posts for no reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer.One of the biggest frustrations I have with web developers is that they always tend to mess with things they should n't , like the fact that you seem to think it 's necessary to alter the text formatting of all your posts for no reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the biggest frustrations I have as a Web developer.One of the biggest frustrations I have with web developers is that they always tend to mess with things they shouldn't, like the fact that you seem to think it's necessary to alter the text formatting of all your posts for no reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466506</id>
	<title>Oh no, here we go again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good grief, not again.  The problem with clod computing isn't the ability to store large amounts of data locally... the problem with clod computing is latency and record locking in a multi-user environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief , not again .
The problem with clod computing is n't the ability to store large amounts of data locally... the problem with clod computing is latency and record locking in a multi-user environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good grief, not again.
The problem with clod computing isn't the ability to store large amounts of data locally... the problem with clod computing is latency and record locking in a multi-user environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465380</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1268509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple declined to comment about its support for IndexedDB.<br>
<br>
However, if IE, Mozilla, and Chrome support Indexed DB, and it becomes a W3C standard, it's likely Apple won't have much choice, because programmers will begin to use it.<br>
<br>
Happily for Apple, Google has detailed its approach in a Chrome design document and has begun checking Indexed DB code into WebKit, the open-source project that underlies both Safari and Chrome. That means Apple will be able to adopt a tested version of the technology relatively quickly.</p></div><p>
Browser OS/webapps isn't really their market.<br>
<br>
Personally, I reckon they are trying to work out who to sue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple declined to comment about its support for IndexedDB .
However , if IE , Mozilla , and Chrome support Indexed DB , and it becomes a W3C standard , it 's likely Apple wo n't have much choice , because programmers will begin to use it .
Happily for Apple , Google has detailed its approach in a Chrome design document and has begun checking Indexed DB code into WebKit , the open-source project that underlies both Safari and Chrome .
That means Apple will be able to adopt a tested version of the technology relatively quickly .
Browser OS/webapps is n't really their market .
Personally , I reckon they are trying to work out who to sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple declined to comment about its support for IndexedDB.
However, if IE, Mozilla, and Chrome support Indexed DB, and it becomes a W3C standard, it's likely Apple won't have much choice, because programmers will begin to use it.
Happily for Apple, Google has detailed its approach in a Chrome design document and has begun checking Indexed DB code into WebKit, the open-source project that underlies both Safari and Chrome.
That means Apple will be able to adopt a tested version of the technology relatively quickly.
Browser OS/webapps isn't really their market.
Personally, I reckon they are trying to work out who to sue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467040</id>
	<title>Re:Slowly reinventing the wheel in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268477700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web programming has always felt to me like a failed attempt at reinventing X11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web programming has always felt to me like a failed attempt at reinventing X11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web programming has always felt to me like a failed attempt at reinventing X11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465534</id>
	<title>I must have missed something</title>
	<author>Mike Rice</author>
	<datestamp>1268510160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't local storage part of HTML 5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't local storage part of HTML 5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't local storage part of HTML 5?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468272</id>
	<title>Cookies on steriods</title>
	<author>yalap</author>
	<datestamp>1268487180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably it will go through the same paranora that people had over cookies and eventually most people will give up and accept how much can be tracked about themselves and their web browsing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably it will go through the same paranora that people had over cookies and eventually most people will give up and accept how much can be tracked about themselves and their web browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably it will go through the same paranora that people had over cookies and eventually most people will give up and accept how much can be tracked about themselves and their web browsing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466630</id>
	<title>Re:Need to decouple Javascript before it's too lat</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1268474520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not entirely true. Technically xslt is a programming language and is supported by many browsers. I know of at least one person writing an XML/XSLT CMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not entirely true .
Technically xslt is a programming language and is supported by many browsers .
I know of at least one person writing an XML/XSLT CMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not entirely true.
Technically xslt is a programming language and is supported by many browsers.
I know of at least one person writing an XML/XSLT CMS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466242</id>
	<title>Kinda necessary</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1268471760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's kinda necessary because nobody will agree on a common runtime or at least common APIs.  I'm sure intel and AMD are happy though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kinda necessary because nobody will agree on a common runtime or at least common APIs .
I 'm sure intel and AMD are happy though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kinda necessary because nobody will agree on a common runtime or at least common APIs.
I'm sure intel and AMD are happy though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468406</id>
	<title>Re:Need to decouple Javascript before it's too lat</title>
	<author>patniemeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1268488140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we could create a VM based language designed for networked applications, with a full blown security model down to the bytecode and performance as good as a static language....  And to make people comfortable we could name it something that sounds like JavaScript... I dunno... like Java.. Java...  I can't think of one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Oh, and then Microsoft can adopt it just enough to completely derail it and prevent it from becoming useful in the browser market...  And Sun can let the UI and media implementations lag permanently 5 years behind because it doesn't help them sell more server hardware...  And the whole thing can just fester until Google comes along and teams of the smartest people in the world waste years  of their lives building a layer of sanity over the JavaScript mess that is acceptable enough to write apps for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we could create a VM based language designed for networked applications , with a full blown security model down to the bytecode and performance as good as a static language.... And to make people comfortable we could name it something that sounds like JavaScript... I dunno... like Java.. Java... I ca n't think of one : ) Oh , and then Microsoft can adopt it just enough to completely derail it and prevent it from becoming useful in the browser market... And Sun can let the UI and media implementations lag permanently 5 years behind because it does n't help them sell more server hardware... And the whole thing can just fester until Google comes along and teams of the smartest people in the world waste years of their lives building a layer of sanity over the JavaScript mess that is acceptable enough to write apps for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we could create a VM based language designed for networked applications, with a full blown security model down to the bytecode and performance as good as a static language....  And to make people comfortable we could name it something that sounds like JavaScript... I dunno... like Java.. Java...  I can't think of one :)Oh, and then Microsoft can adopt it just enough to completely derail it and prevent it from becoming useful in the browser market...  And Sun can let the UI and media implementations lag permanently 5 years behind because it doesn't help them sell more server hardware...  And the whole thing can just fester until Google comes along and teams of the smartest people in the world waste years  of their lives building a layer of sanity over the JavaScript mess that is acceptable enough to write apps for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468934</id>
	<title>#irc.trollta7k.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>eyes on the real tHe facts and</htmltext>
<tokenext>eyes on the real tHe facts and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eyes on the real tHe facts and</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479226</id>
	<title>Re:Golden age of the web set to continue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now you see that evil will always triumph because Good is Dumb".<br>
&nbsp; -- Dark Helmit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now you see that evil will always triumph because Good is Dumb " .
  -- Dark Helmit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now you see that evil will always triumph because Good is Dumb".
  -- Dark Helmit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</id>
	<title>Slowly reinventing the wheel in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268509560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, you've developed a framework for client-server application development. Welcome to 1990. But wait, it's different this time because it's lightweight? Only it's not. Your framework runtime (the browser) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did, and you still can't provide the same level of functionality.</p><p>Progress in the software industry today looks like this:<br>- 2003: Microsoft releases Office 2003<br>- 2008: Google releases quirky, limited-functionality clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser<br>- 2016: Google releases quirky but fully functional clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser, only it's progress because it's Web 5.0!!!</p><p>Thanks but no thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you 've developed a framework for client-server application development .
Welcome to 1990 .
But wait , it 's different this time because it 's lightweight ?
Only it 's not .
Your framework runtime ( the browser ) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did , and you still ca n't provide the same level of functionality.Progress in the software industry today looks like this : - 2003 : Microsoft releases Office 2003- 2008 : Google releases quirky , limited-functionality clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser- 2016 : Google releases quirky but fully functional clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser , only it 's progress because it 's Web 5.0 ! !
! Thanks but no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you've developed a framework for client-server application development.
Welcome to 1990.
But wait, it's different this time because it's lightweight?
Only it's not.
Your framework runtime (the browser) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did, and you still can't provide the same level of functionality.Progress in the software industry today looks like this:- 2003: Microsoft releases Office 2003- 2008: Google releases quirky, limited-functionality clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser- 2016: Google releases quirky but fully functional clone of Office 2003 that runs in the browser, only it's progress because it's Web 5.0!!
!Thanks but no thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466330</id>
	<title>Users like the division</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268472360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The few times I've tried to pitch web apps to clients as a genuine replacement for desktop apps, they've glared at me like I was threatening to kill their favorite dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The few times I 've tried to pitch web apps to clients as a genuine replacement for desktop apps , they 've glared at me like I was threatening to kill their favorite dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The few times I've tried to pitch web apps to clients as a genuine replacement for desktop apps, they've glared at me like I was threatening to kill their favorite dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466130</id>
	<title>Three cheers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268471100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is absolutely amazing, against all probability they've managed to make something even less elegant than SQL.  Truly a herculean task!</p><p>Now, if we can please have a workable proposal?  The original idea of speccing SQLite was better than this IndexDB nonsense -- hell, even bindings between Berkely DB API and the browsers DOM would be better.  Microsoft would grudgingly "support" something with real-world potential, if they are promoting IndexDB it's because they know it's such a crap spec that'll it give silverlight a fighting chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absolutely amazing , against all probability they 've managed to make something even less elegant than SQL .
Truly a herculean task ! Now , if we can please have a workable proposal ?
The original idea of speccing SQLite was better than this IndexDB nonsense -- hell , even bindings between Berkely DB API and the browsers DOM would be better .
Microsoft would grudgingly " support " something with real-world potential , if they are promoting IndexDB it 's because they know it 's such a crap spec that 'll it give silverlight a fighting chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absolutely amazing, against all probability they've managed to make something even less elegant than SQL.
Truly a herculean task!Now, if we can please have a workable proposal?
The original idea of speccing SQLite was better than this IndexDB nonsense -- hell, even bindings between Berkely DB API and the browsers DOM would be better.
Microsoft would grudgingly "support" something with real-world potential, if they are promoting IndexDB it's because they know it's such a crap spec that'll it give silverlight a fighting chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446</id>
	<title>The Web is better</title>
	<author>Geof</author>
	<datestamp>1268473140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Your framework runtime (the browser) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did, and you still can't provide the same level of functionality.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I think you're wrong.  Functionality is not the name of the game.  Communication and content are.  Look, I was doing client-server development in the 1990s:  Mac Programmer's Workshop (C++), Unix sockets (C), Microsoft Foundation Classes (C++).  I would never go back.  True, your example does illustrate your point.  There are whole classes of application, like word processors, for which the Web is not (currently).  But those are mostly stable, well-defined categories.  The Web is not a better way to write Word, but it is a better way to create other software we want even more.

</p><p>1. The Web is social.  When you develop an application, communication between users is practically a given.  Back in the day, client-server software was deployed within organizations and was focused on access to data or business processes.  Communication was rare and tended to be limited.

</p><p>2. The web centers on content to which developers add various functionality.  You may have to work harder on your applications controls, but HTML and CSS give you tremendous power.  A framework like Flash or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET may let you put things exactly where you want them, but this takes flexibility (e.g. text sizing) away from the user.  And they are still missing significant chunks of what HTML+CSS can do.

</p><p>3. The Web is simple.  The learning curve for web applications is dramatically lower than for the kinds of apps you are talking about. HTML gives you hyperlinks for free.  It also gives you a history with forward/back buttons, bookmarkable URLs, and a world of users who have been trained to use them.  Programmers who try to develop apps without these features loose out on core benefits of the Web (hello, Flash).

</p><p>4. The Web is relatively unified and transparent.  I can view source on any page, or if that doesn't work use Firebug to break down the DOM.  These days the standards are complex, but there are real advantages over a mess of competing frameworks.  Browser implementations are inconsistent:  but that beats writing client-server software that works on some mix of Mac, Windows, and assorted Unix flavors, then trying to persuade the wider world to install client software.

</p><p>5. Javascript doesn't suck.  I was surprised too when I found this out.  It has some real weaknesses for sure (dynamic scoping!).  It's no Python or Ruby, but it is powerful and its idiosyncrasies pale beside, say, C++ or PHP.  Perhaps its biggest flaw is the pathetically poor standard library.

</p><p>If you want to write a word-processor, the weaknesses of the Web compared to traditional client-server development may be very frustrating.  You could still go with client-server, which seems like the right tool for the job.  But you don't.  The advantages of the Web are overwhelming.  It's easier to be nostalgic about the benefits of client-server than to reinvent the benefits of the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your framework runtime ( the browser ) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did , and you still ca n't provide the same level of functionality .
I think you 're wrong .
Functionality is not the name of the game .
Communication and content are .
Look , I was doing client-server development in the 1990s : Mac Programmer 's Workshop ( C + + ) , Unix sockets ( C ) , Microsoft Foundation Classes ( C + + ) .
I would never go back .
True , your example does illustrate your point .
There are whole classes of application , like word processors , for which the Web is not ( currently ) .
But those are mostly stable , well-defined categories .
The Web is not a better way to write Word , but it is a better way to create other software we want even more .
1. The Web is social .
When you develop an application , communication between users is practically a given .
Back in the day , client-server software was deployed within organizations and was focused on access to data or business processes .
Communication was rare and tended to be limited .
2. The web centers on content to which developers add various functionality .
You may have to work harder on your applications controls , but HTML and CSS give you tremendous power .
A framework like Flash or .NET may let you put things exactly where you want them , but this takes flexibility ( e.g .
text sizing ) away from the user .
And they are still missing significant chunks of what HTML + CSS can do .
3. The Web is simple .
The learning curve for web applications is dramatically lower than for the kinds of apps you are talking about .
HTML gives you hyperlinks for free .
It also gives you a history with forward/back buttons , bookmarkable URLs , and a world of users who have been trained to use them .
Programmers who try to develop apps without these features loose out on core benefits of the Web ( hello , Flash ) .
4. The Web is relatively unified and transparent .
I can view source on any page , or if that does n't work use Firebug to break down the DOM .
These days the standards are complex , but there are real advantages over a mess of competing frameworks .
Browser implementations are inconsistent : but that beats writing client-server software that works on some mix of Mac , Windows , and assorted Unix flavors , then trying to persuade the wider world to install client software .
5. Javascript does n't suck .
I was surprised too when I found this out .
It has some real weaknesses for sure ( dynamic scoping ! ) .
It 's no Python or Ruby , but it is powerful and its idiosyncrasies pale beside , say , C + + or PHP .
Perhaps its biggest flaw is the pathetically poor standard library .
If you want to write a word-processor , the weaknesses of the Web compared to traditional client-server development may be very frustrating .
You could still go with client-server , which seems like the right tool for the job .
But you do n't .
The advantages of the Web are overwhelming .
It 's easier to be nostalgic about the benefits of client-server than to reinvent the benefits of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your framework runtime (the browser) consumes many times the resources that existing client-server applications ever did, and you still can't provide the same level of functionality.
I think you're wrong.
Functionality is not the name of the game.
Communication and content are.
Look, I was doing client-server development in the 1990s:  Mac Programmer's Workshop (C++), Unix sockets (C), Microsoft Foundation Classes (C++).
I would never go back.
True, your example does illustrate your point.
There are whole classes of application, like word processors, for which the Web is not (currently).
But those are mostly stable, well-defined categories.
The Web is not a better way to write Word, but it is a better way to create other software we want even more.
1. The Web is social.
When you develop an application, communication between users is practically a given.
Back in the day, client-server software was deployed within organizations and was focused on access to data or business processes.
Communication was rare and tended to be limited.
2. The web centers on content to which developers add various functionality.
You may have to work harder on your applications controls, but HTML and CSS give you tremendous power.
A framework like Flash or .NET may let you put things exactly where you want them, but this takes flexibility (e.g.
text sizing) away from the user.
And they are still missing significant chunks of what HTML+CSS can do.
3. The Web is simple.
The learning curve for web applications is dramatically lower than for the kinds of apps you are talking about.
HTML gives you hyperlinks for free.
It also gives you a history with forward/back buttons, bookmarkable URLs, and a world of users who have been trained to use them.
Programmers who try to develop apps without these features loose out on core benefits of the Web (hello, Flash).
4. The Web is relatively unified and transparent.
I can view source on any page, or if that doesn't work use Firebug to break down the DOM.
These days the standards are complex, but there are real advantages over a mess of competing frameworks.
Browser implementations are inconsistent:  but that beats writing client-server software that works on some mix of Mac, Windows, and assorted Unix flavors, then trying to persuade the wider world to install client software.
5. Javascript doesn't suck.
I was surprised too when I found this out.
It has some real weaknesses for sure (dynamic scoping!).
It's no Python or Ruby, but it is powerful and its idiosyncrasies pale beside, say, C++ or PHP.
Perhaps its biggest flaw is the pathetically poor standard library.
If you want to write a word-processor, the weaknesses of the Web compared to traditional client-server development may be very frustrating.
You could still go with client-server, which seems like the right tool for the job.
But you don't.
The advantages of the Web are overwhelming.
It's easier to be nostalgic about the benefits of client-server than to reinvent the benefits of the web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468750</id>
	<title>Re:I'm glad Microsoft is involved in the early sta</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268491140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would prefer IE to just use MSSQL CE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would prefer IE to just use MSSQL CE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would prefer IE to just use MSSQL CE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</id>
	<title>Need to decouple Javascript before it's too late</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1268510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I see that our options as developers for interacting with this stunning new invention are still limited to one: Javascript.</p><p>With application development increasingly moving to the browser, we as developers are going to find ourselves locked into a one language platform.</p><p>The browser platform should standardize on a VM, not on a language. Say goodbye to traditional paths of evolution of programming languages driven by competition. Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster? No can do. It's JavaScriptway or the highway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I see that our options as developers for interacting with this stunning new invention are still limited to one : Javascript.With application development increasingly moving to the browser , we as developers are going to find ourselves locked into a one language platform.The browser platform should standardize on a VM , not on a language .
Say goodbye to traditional paths of evolution of programming languages driven by competition .
Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster ?
No can do .
It 's JavaScriptway or the highway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I see that our options as developers for interacting with this stunning new invention are still limited to one: Javascript.With application development increasingly moving to the browser, we as developers are going to find ourselves locked into a one language platform.The browser platform should standardize on a VM, not on a language.
Say goodbye to traditional paths of evolution of programming languages driven by competition.
Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster?
No can do.
It's JavaScriptway or the highway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31475074</id>
	<title>This is so ass backwards</title>
	<author>knorthern knight</author>
	<datestamp>1268564040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an idea.  Let's create a lightweight desktop app that can browse the web and stream audio/video, upload/download files, and submit text for online shopping, and posting to Slashdot.  Let's call it web... err... uhmm... web browser.  Yeah, that's it.  Let's call it a web browser.</p><p>If we need to do anything more, develope a "helper application".  Even better; an internet-enabled app that avoids screwing around with my browser altogether.  I don't know about everybody else here, but I was around in the days of Mozilla 0.9x.  It was a big, bloated, slow, joke of an app, even with compiler optimizations.  There was lots of joking regarding "about:kitchen sink".  People started yelling and screaming for a lightweight web browser, *WITHOUT* email, usenet, webpage developement tools, etc, etc.  Thus was Phoenix born, later renamed to Firebird and then Firefox, due to legal issues.</p><p>Maybe it's time for a lightweight *WEB BROWSER* version of Firefox.  *WHY* the F*** do web browser writers *INSIST* on trying to develope pseudo-operating-systems on top of their web browsers?  Are they refugees from the emacs world?  Don't they remember what happened when AOL tried to "re-invent the browser" and destroyed Netscape in the process?</p><p>If you *REALLY* need to edit a spreadsheet on a remote server, you should be using a VPN.  Failing that, howsabout internet-enabled apps like so...<br>excel <a href="https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls" title="example.com">https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls</a> [example.com]<br>or<br>gnumeric <a href="https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls" title="example.com">https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls</a> [example.com]<br>Ditto with word-processors etc.  And puh-lease keep your hands off my web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an idea .
Let 's create a lightweight desktop app that can browse the web and stream audio/video , upload/download files , and submit text for online shopping , and posting to Slashdot .
Let 's call it web... err... uhmm... web browser .
Yeah , that 's it .
Let 's call it a web browser.If we need to do anything more , develope a " helper application " .
Even better ; an internet-enabled app that avoids screwing around with my browser altogether .
I do n't know about everybody else here , but I was around in the days of Mozilla 0.9x .
It was a big , bloated , slow , joke of an app , even with compiler optimizations .
There was lots of joking regarding " about : kitchen sink " .
People started yelling and screaming for a lightweight web browser , * WITHOUT * email , usenet , webpage developement tools , etc , etc .
Thus was Phoenix born , later renamed to Firebird and then Firefox , due to legal issues.Maybe it 's time for a lightweight * WEB BROWSER * version of Firefox .
* WHY * the F * * * do web browser writers * INSIST * on trying to develope pseudo-operating-systems on top of their web browsers ?
Are they refugees from the emacs world ?
Do n't they remember what happened when AOL tried to " re-invent the browser " and destroyed Netscape in the process ? If you * REALLY * need to edit a spreadsheet on a remote server , you should be using a VPN .
Failing that , howsabout internet-enabled apps like so...excel https : //www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls [ example.com ] orgnumeric https : //www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls [ example.com ] Ditto with word-processors etc .
And puh-lease keep your hands off my web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an idea.
Let's create a lightweight desktop app that can browse the web and stream audio/video, upload/download files, and submit text for online shopping, and posting to Slashdot.
Let's call it web... err... uhmm... web browser.
Yeah, that's it.
Let's call it a web browser.If we need to do anything more, develope a "helper application".
Even better; an internet-enabled app that avoids screwing around with my browser altogether.
I don't know about everybody else here, but I was around in the days of Mozilla 0.9x.
It was a big, bloated, slow, joke of an app, even with compiler optimizations.
There was lots of joking regarding "about:kitchen sink".
People started yelling and screaming for a lightweight web browser, *WITHOUT* email, usenet, webpage developement tools, etc, etc.
Thus was Phoenix born, later renamed to Firebird and then Firefox, due to legal issues.Maybe it's time for a lightweight *WEB BROWSER* version of Firefox.
*WHY* the F*** do web browser writers *INSIST* on trying to develope pseudo-operating-systems on top of their web browsers?
Are they refugees from the emacs world?
Don't they remember what happened when AOL tried to "re-invent the browser" and destroyed Netscape in the process?If you *REALLY* need to edit a spreadsheet on a remote server, you should be using a VPN.
Failing that, howsabout internet-enabled apps like so...excel https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls [example.com]orgnumeric https://www.bad.example.com/fubar.xls [example.com]Ditto with word-processors etc.
And puh-lease keep your hands off my web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31477214</id>
	<title>Re:Need to decouple Javascript before it's too lat</title>
	<author>jesboat</author>
	<datestamp>1268579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why it makes an easy target for a Scheme compiler, right?</p><p><a href="http://github.com/dyoo/moby-scheme" title="github.com">http://github.com/dyoo/moby-scheme</a> [github.com]<br><a href="http://planet.plt-scheme.org/display.ss?package=moby.plt&amp;owner=dyoo" title="plt-scheme.org">http://planet.plt-scheme.org/display.ss?package=moby.plt&amp;owner=dyoo</a> [plt-scheme.org]<br><a href="http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Talks/Moby-Bootstrap/" title="brown.edu">http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Talks/Moby-Bootstrap/</a> [brown.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why it makes an easy target for a Scheme compiler , right ? http : //github.com/dyoo/moby-scheme [ github.com ] http : //planet.plt-scheme.org/display.ss ? package = moby.plt&amp;owner = dyoo [ plt-scheme.org ] http : //www.cs.brown.edu/ ~ sk/Publications/Talks/Moby-Bootstrap/ [ brown.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why it makes an easy target for a Scheme compiler, right?http://github.com/dyoo/moby-scheme [github.com]http://planet.plt-scheme.org/display.ss?package=moby.plt&amp;owner=dyoo [plt-scheme.org]http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Talks/Moby-Bootstrap/ [brown.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467846</id>
	<title>Web as application delivery mechanism</title>
	<author>pem</author>
	<datestamp>1268483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I'm a heretic, but all this stuff is way too complicated.  Let's say that I code a little Python application I can give out to people.  The hard part is they need to download Python (or I could freeze the app and they could download a multi-megabyte file).  In any case, once it's downloaded, it's not my deal any more.  I can explain to them where there files are, how to back them up, etc.  It's perfect for little open source apps.
<p>
But with this web stuff, now, if I want to persist data, I need to do it for them, or write some wacky code for backup, or whatever.  It's too tightly coupled to the browser.
</p><p>
The best of both worlds would be a browser option that allows the user to associate a website with a local directory.  Then, an in-browser application could read and write files on the local filesystem.
</p><p>
This whole deal of "give each application 10MB" or whatever in some invisible space that is on the user's hard disk is just making some default decisions on the user's behalf without making him think, which is a reasonable model for some things.  But why can't we use the browser to deploy desktop applications that the user doesn't need to install, and that don't need to be written in Java or use some other probably broken or browser specific special mojo?
</p><p>
The whole thing is security theater as bad as the DHS has.  All the fancy stuff doesn't seem to affect the ability of real, dedicated, virus writers to inflict incalculable damage on millions of computers, but the idea that a web application could ask the user "Can you give me a directory where I can store the data I create for you?" sends these trained professionals into a worse tailspin than somebody who inadvertently walks through airport security in actual shoes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm a heretic , but all this stuff is way too complicated .
Let 's say that I code a little Python application I can give out to people .
The hard part is they need to download Python ( or I could freeze the app and they could download a multi-megabyte file ) .
In any case , once it 's downloaded , it 's not my deal any more .
I can explain to them where there files are , how to back them up , etc .
It 's perfect for little open source apps .
But with this web stuff , now , if I want to persist data , I need to do it for them , or write some wacky code for backup , or whatever .
It 's too tightly coupled to the browser .
The best of both worlds would be a browser option that allows the user to associate a website with a local directory .
Then , an in-browser application could read and write files on the local filesystem .
This whole deal of " give each application 10MB " or whatever in some invisible space that is on the user 's hard disk is just making some default decisions on the user 's behalf without making him think , which is a reasonable model for some things .
But why ca n't we use the browser to deploy desktop applications that the user does n't need to install , and that do n't need to be written in Java or use some other probably broken or browser specific special mojo ?
The whole thing is security theater as bad as the DHS has .
All the fancy stuff does n't seem to affect the ability of real , dedicated , virus writers to inflict incalculable damage on millions of computers , but the idea that a web application could ask the user " Can you give me a directory where I can store the data I create for you ?
" sends these trained professionals into a worse tailspin than somebody who inadvertently walks through airport security in actual shoes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm a heretic, but all this stuff is way too complicated.
Let's say that I code a little Python application I can give out to people.
The hard part is they need to download Python (or I could freeze the app and they could download a multi-megabyte file).
In any case, once it's downloaded, it's not my deal any more.
I can explain to them where there files are, how to back them up, etc.
It's perfect for little open source apps.
But with this web stuff, now, if I want to persist data, I need to do it for them, or write some wacky code for backup, or whatever.
It's too tightly coupled to the browser.
The best of both worlds would be a browser option that allows the user to associate a website with a local directory.
Then, an in-browser application could read and write files on the local filesystem.
This whole deal of "give each application 10MB" or whatever in some invisible space that is on the user's hard disk is just making some default decisions on the user's behalf without making him think, which is a reasonable model for some things.
But why can't we use the browser to deploy desktop applications that the user doesn't need to install, and that don't need to be written in Java or use some other probably broken or browser specific special mojo?
The whole thing is security theater as bad as the DHS has.
All the fancy stuff doesn't seem to affect the ability of real, dedicated, virus writers to inflict incalculable damage on millions of computers, but the idea that a web application could ask the user "Can you give me a directory where I can store the data I create for you?
" sends these trained professionals into a worse tailspin than somebody who inadvertently walks through airport security in actual shoes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467952</id>
	<title>if you want to reinvent the wheel, do it right!</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have technologies, that are perfectly fine to create everything, that is neccessary...
<ul>
<li>make the webbrowser an X-Server and the webserver an X-Client (no, not vice versa - read about the server/client structure of X...)</li>
<li>make the webbrowser a Pulse Audio Server and the webserver a Pulse Audio Client</li>
<li>make the webbrowser an SSH Server and the server an SSHFS client, which mounts one of your local directories (that the webbrowser shares - this could be interfaced like the "download" dialog...)</li>
</ul><p>

another idea would be a transmission of a binary, that is run in a virtual machine, which runs some minimalistic linux...<br> <br>

It's just insane to put duct tape after duct tape on a filetype and a protocol, to add feature after feature. features, that the specifications were deliberately designed to <b>not</b> support! http for example was designed for just passive consumption (no sessions - this today makes web-developers use session ids in cookies and such) or html was not meant to be able to send data back.<br>
all this added javascript, css, flash, AJAX, all the server-side stuff like php are mere duct tapes to (poorly) add stuff, that was deliberately left out in the first place...<br> <br>

In my opinion it is time to scrap all that legacy shit, start over from scratch and this time, do it right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have technologies , that are perfectly fine to create everything , that is neccessary.. . make the webbrowser an X-Server and the webserver an X-Client ( no , not vice versa - read about the server/client structure of X... ) make the webbrowser a Pulse Audio Server and the webserver a Pulse Audio Client make the webbrowser an SSH Server and the server an SSHFS client , which mounts one of your local directories ( that the webbrowser shares - this could be interfaced like the " download " dialog... ) another idea would be a transmission of a binary , that is run in a virtual machine , which runs some minimalistic linux.. . It 's just insane to put duct tape after duct tape on a filetype and a protocol , to add feature after feature .
features , that the specifications were deliberately designed to not support !
http for example was designed for just passive consumption ( no sessions - this today makes web-developers use session ids in cookies and such ) or html was not meant to be able to send data back .
all this added javascript , css , flash , AJAX , all the server-side stuff like php are mere duct tapes to ( poorly ) add stuff , that was deliberately left out in the first place.. . In my opinion it is time to scrap all that legacy shit , start over from scratch and this time , do it right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have technologies, that are perfectly fine to create everything, that is neccessary...

make the webbrowser an X-Server and the webserver an X-Client (no, not vice versa - read about the server/client structure of X...)
make the webbrowser a Pulse Audio Server and the webserver a Pulse Audio Client
make the webbrowser an SSH Server and the server an SSHFS client, which mounts one of your local directories (that the webbrowser shares - this could be interfaced like the "download" dialog...)


another idea would be a transmission of a binary, that is run in a virtual machine, which runs some minimalistic linux... 

It's just insane to put duct tape after duct tape on a filetype and a protocol, to add feature after feature.
features, that the specifications were deliberately designed to not support!
http for example was designed for just passive consumption (no sessions - this today makes web-developers use session ids in cookies and such) or html was not meant to be able to send data back.
all this added javascript, css, flash, AJAX, all the server-side stuff like php are mere duct tapes to (poorly) add stuff, that was deliberately left out in the first place... 

In my opinion it is time to scrap all that legacy shit, start over from scratch and this time, do it right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465496</id>
	<title>Re:Golden age of the web set to continue</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1268509860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it looks like the Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.</p></div><p>Dude, the web didn't even exist until about 18 years ago. We're still evaluating the impact that the internet is having on culture -- what with some countries defining it as an inalienable human right and others eager to all but destroy or censor the crap out of it, the "golden age" is not what I'd call this time period. I'd call it the friggin' dark ages -- a mish-mash of global entities all competing at cross-purposes, a thriving black market, and every week more of our technology becomes connected to it, and people being burned at the stake for "file sharing", and the world wide web is being crapflooded with advertisements and commercial interests that continually infest the garden of knowledge that is the web like weeds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks like the Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.Dude , the web did n't even exist until about 18 years ago .
We 're still evaluating the impact that the internet is having on culture -- what with some countries defining it as an inalienable human right and others eager to all but destroy or censor the crap out of it , the " golden age " is not what I 'd call this time period .
I 'd call it the friggin ' dark ages -- a mish-mash of global entities all competing at cross-purposes , a thriving black market , and every week more of our technology becomes connected to it , and people being burned at the stake for " file sharing " , and the world wide web is being crapflooded with advertisements and commercial interests that continually infest the garden of knowledge that is the web like weeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks like the Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.Dude, the web didn't even exist until about 18 years ago.
We're still evaluating the impact that the internet is having on culture -- what with some countries defining it as an inalienable human right and others eager to all but destroy or censor the crap out of it, the "golden age" is not what I'd call this time period.
I'd call it the friggin' dark ages -- a mish-mash of global entities all competing at cross-purposes, a thriving black market, and every week more of our technology becomes connected to it, and people being burned at the stake for "file sharing", and the world wide web is being crapflooded with advertisements and commercial interests that continually infest the garden of knowledge that is the web like weeds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468654</id>
	<title>Re:Golden age of the web set to continue</title>
	<author>OverZealous.com</author>
	<datestamp>1268490180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this would be a problem.  If you already own the website, then you already can change the URL at will to anything you want.</p><p>The only reason this would be a bigger issue is XSS attacks - but those are already have way more important concerns than just spoofing the URL.</p><p>Personally, I would love it.  It would make it much easier to merge the mobile/AJAX/static structures of the website, allow end-users to access the same bookmarks from multiple devices, and provide a much cleaner look than we already have.</p><p>Currently, the real issue with AJAX-webapp links is that the server never gets the hash (fragment) portion of the URL.  This makes it hard to serve the correct page to a mobile device, and completely impossible if the device does not support JavaScript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this would be a problem .
If you already own the website , then you already can change the URL at will to anything you want.The only reason this would be a bigger issue is XSS attacks - but those are already have way more important concerns than just spoofing the URL.Personally , I would love it .
It would make it much easier to merge the mobile/AJAX/static structures of the website , allow end-users to access the same bookmarks from multiple devices , and provide a much cleaner look than we already have.Currently , the real issue with AJAX-webapp links is that the server never gets the hash ( fragment ) portion of the URL .
This makes it hard to serve the correct page to a mobile device , and completely impossible if the device does not support JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this would be a problem.
If you already own the website, then you already can change the URL at will to anything you want.The only reason this would be a bigger issue is XSS attacks - but those are already have way more important concerns than just spoofing the URL.Personally, I would love it.
It would make it much easier to merge the mobile/AJAX/static structures of the website, allow end-users to access the same bookmarks from multiple devices, and provide a much cleaner look than we already have.Currently, the real issue with AJAX-webapp links is that the server never gets the hash (fragment) portion of the URL.
This makes it hard to serve the correct page to a mobile device, and completely impossible if the device does not support JavaScript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708</id>
	<title>Re:Golden age of the web set to continue</title>
	<author>user32.ExitWindowsEx</author>
	<datestamp>1268511540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that pushState / replaceState link and it scared me. Note the following from it:</p><p><i>Suppose <a href="http://mozilla.org/foo.html" title="mozilla.org">http://mozilla.org/foo.html</a> [mozilla.org] executes the following JavaScript:</i> </p><p><tt><br>var stateObj = { foo: "bar" };<br>history.pushState(stateObj, "page 2", "bar.html");<br></tt><br><i>This will cause the URL bar to display <a href="http://mozilla.org/bar.html" title="mozilla.org">http://mozilla.org/bar.html</a> [mozilla.org], but won't cause the browser to load bar.html or even check that bar.html exists.</i></p><p>Why do I have a feeling that said effect can and will primarily be used for horribly evil purposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that pushState / replaceState link and it scared me .
Note the following from it : Suppose http : //mozilla.org/foo.html [ mozilla.org ] executes the following JavaScript : var stateObj = { foo : " bar " } ; history.pushState ( stateObj , " page 2 " , " bar.html " ) ; This will cause the URL bar to display http : //mozilla.org/bar.html [ mozilla.org ] , but wo n't cause the browser to load bar.html or even check that bar.html exists.Why do I have a feeling that said effect can and will primarily be used for horribly evil purposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that pushState / replaceState link and it scared me.
Note the following from it:Suppose http://mozilla.org/foo.html [mozilla.org] executes the following JavaScript: var stateObj = { foo: "bar" };history.pushState(stateObj, "page 2", "bar.html");This will cause the URL bar to display http://mozilla.org/bar.html [mozilla.org], but won't cause the browser to load bar.html or even check that bar.html exists.Why do I have a feeling that said effect can and will primarily be used for horribly evil purposes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466854</id>
	<title>Re:Slowly reinventing the wheel in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this is true, grandma doesn't have to install anything. Everything is done for her if her browser supports it. Moreover, you can use applications without having to install anything which is a big bonus since applications now seem to think they have unlimited privileges (like adding themselves to your start menu, taking over file type associations when you don't want them to, adding themselves as a service, installing third party software unrelated to the application, etc) to your computer if you install them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this is true , grandma does n't have to install anything .
Everything is done for her if her browser supports it .
Moreover , you can use applications without having to install anything which is a big bonus since applications now seem to think they have unlimited privileges ( like adding themselves to your start menu , taking over file type associations when you do n't want them to , adding themselves as a service , installing third party software unrelated to the application , etc ) to your computer if you install them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this is true, grandma doesn't have to install anything.
Everything is done for her if her browser supports it.
Moreover, you can use applications without having to install anything which is a big bonus since applications now seem to think they have unlimited privileges (like adding themselves to your start menu, taking over file type associations when you don't want them to, adding themselves as a service, installing third party software unrelated to the application, etc) to your computer if you install them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465384</id>
	<title>I beg you, please don't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The web is not an application programming interface. Yes, the "runtime" is ubiquitous and cross-platform, but the price is too high: API induced insanity is going to become an occupational disease among developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not an application programming interface .
Yes , the " runtime " is ubiquitous and cross-platform , but the price is too high : API induced insanity is going to become an occupational disease among developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not an application programming interface.
Yes, the "runtime" is ubiquitous and cross-platform, but the price is too high: API induced insanity is going to become an occupational disease among developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31469284</id>
	<title>Re:The Web is not the Net.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268496240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent<br>&gt; of the usage on the Net...</p><p>The Web is not the Net.</p></div><p>Stop being so pedantic.  Yes they are different, but everyone refers to them synonymously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...Internet Explorer , Firefox , and Chrome account for more than 90 percent &gt; of the usage on the Net...The Web is not the Net.Stop being so pedantic .
Yes they are different , but everyone refers to them synonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome account for more than 90 percent&gt; of the usage on the Net...The Web is not the Net.Stop being so pedantic.
Yes they are different, but everyone refers to them synonymously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468226</id>
	<title>It's too late</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1268486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster? No can do.</i></p><p>If you're familiar enough with functional language <i>F</i> (and JavaScript) to be justifiably snobby about JavaScript's status as a functional language and suggesting a VM as a solution, you shouldn't have much trouble writing an <i>F</i>-to-JavaScript compiler.</p><p>(If you do, then you likely fail the "justifiably" part of the snobby criteria, and you're also probably not likely to get a jump on that time-to-market measure, given how much more involved getting a standard common browser VM out into the world is going to be than developing a compiler.)</p><p>A VM's a cool idea, and maybe getting the idea into the heads of the people making standards would be worth doing.  But if there's ever been anything like a  "too late" point, we passed it a while ago, probably around the time Netscape split their ideas for client programming between Java and JavaScript. In the meanwhile, the JavaScript we have today is generally pretty capable, works across yesterday's, today's, and probably tomorrow's browsers, and implementations are getting faster. Maybe it's not your favorite language, but we could be doing a lot worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster ?
No can do.If you 're familiar enough with functional language F ( and JavaScript ) to be justifiably snobby about JavaScript 's status as a functional language and suggesting a VM as a solution , you should n't have much trouble writing an F-to-JavaScript compiler .
( If you do , then you likely fail the " justifiably " part of the snobby criteria , and you 're also probably not likely to get a jump on that time-to-market measure , given how much more involved getting a standard common browser VM out into the world is going to be than developing a compiler .
) A VM 's a cool idea , and maybe getting the idea into the heads of the people making standards would be worth doing .
But if there 's ever been anything like a " too late " point , we passed it a while ago , probably around the time Netscape split their ideas for client programming between Java and JavaScript .
In the meanwhile , the JavaScript we have today is generally pretty capable , works across yesterday 's , today 's , and probably tomorrow 's browsers , and implementations are getting faster .
Maybe it 's not your favorite language , but we could be doing a lot worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster?
No can do.If you're familiar enough with functional language F (and JavaScript) to be justifiably snobby about JavaScript's status as a functional language and suggesting a VM as a solution, you shouldn't have much trouble writing an F-to-JavaScript compiler.
(If you do, then you likely fail the "justifiably" part of the snobby criteria, and you're also probably not likely to get a jump on that time-to-market measure, given how much more involved getting a standard common browser VM out into the world is going to be than developing a compiler.
)A VM's a cool idea, and maybe getting the idea into the heads of the people making standards would be worth doing.
But if there's ever been anything like a  "too late" point, we passed it a while ago, probably around the time Netscape split their ideas for client programming between Java and JavaScript.
In the meanwhile, the JavaScript we have today is generally pretty capable, works across yesterday's, today's, and probably tomorrow's browsers, and implementations are getting faster.
Maybe it's not your favorite language, but we could be doing a lot worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466494</id>
	<title>Re:Need to decouple Javascript before it's too lat</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1268473500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster? No can do.</p></div><p>That's not entirely true - you could write in Haskell and <a href="http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Yhc/Javascript/Brief\_overview" title="haskell.org">compile to JavaScript</a> [haskell.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster ?
No can do.That 's not entirely true - you could write in Haskell and compile to JavaScript [ haskell.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to innovate by using a functional language to bring your solution to market faster?
No can do.That's not entirely true - you could write in Haskell and compile to JavaScript [haskell.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467192</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268478960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's directly comparable to the Windows Registry &gt;\_&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's directly comparable to the Windows Registry &gt; \ _ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's directly comparable to the Windows Registry &gt;\_&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465626</id>
	<title>Death of Web as I know it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications</p> </div><p> The day I as user would not be able to resize browser window, adjust font size or copy-paste any random text from a page, will be the death of the web as I concerned.

</p><p> Indexed DB/etc is OK - but rest of the carp they do under the guise of making web seamlessly integrating with the desktop is a huge leap back.

</p><p> Some people has to sit for a moment and recall why web applications started winning over desktop applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications The day I as user would not be able to resize browser window , adjust font size or copy-paste any random text from a page , will be the death of the web as I concerned .
Indexed DB/etc is OK - but rest of the carp they do under the guise of making web seamlessly integrating with the desktop is a huge leap back .
Some people has to sit for a moment and recall why web applications started winning over desktop applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a vision to rebuild the Web as a foundation for applications  The day I as user would not be able to resize browser window, adjust font size or copy-paste any random text from a page, will be the death of the web as I concerned.
Indexed DB/etc is OK - but rest of the carp they do under the guise of making web seamlessly integrating with the desktop is a huge leap back.
Some people has to sit for a moment and recall why web applications started winning over desktop applications.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465504</id>
	<title>Re:The Web is not the Net.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268509920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you find non-Web resources on the Internet other than through search engines on the Web? For example, to find a torrent file, one uses a search engine on the Web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you find non-Web resources on the Internet other than through search engines on the Web ?
For example , to find a torrent file , one uses a search engine on the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you find non-Web resources on the Internet other than through search engines on the Web?
For example, to find a torrent file, one uses a search engine on the Web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466866</id>
	<title>Re:The Web is not the Net.</title>
	<author>JohnnyBGod</author>
	<datestamp>1268476440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or Usenet, or eDonkey, or Limewire, or...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or Usenet , or eDonkey , or Limewire , or.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or Usenet, or eDonkey, or Limewire, or...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479328</id>
	<title>Re:Slowly reinventing the wheel in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except with Google's version you can:<br>1. Access your documents on nearly any OS<br>2. Access your documents from anywhere there is a web browser and internet<br>3. Don't have to buy any overpriced  software<br>4. Get new features automatically<br>5. Can still have offline access<br>6. Can edit simultaneously with other users<br>7. Can chat with said users above<br>8. Can administer security in a simple way by email addresses<br>9. Can create a publicly viewable web version that automatically updates with almost zero effort.</p><p>Obviously, I could go on, but Google's approach does have a lot of benefits.  It currently has some drawbacks as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except with Google 's version you can : 1 .
Access your documents on nearly any OS2 .
Access your documents from anywhere there is a web browser and internet3 .
Do n't have to buy any overpriced software4 .
Get new features automatically5 .
Can still have offline access6 .
Can edit simultaneously with other users7 .
Can chat with said users above8 .
Can administer security in a simple way by email addresses9 .
Can create a publicly viewable web version that automatically updates with almost zero effort.Obviously , I could go on , but Google 's approach does have a lot of benefits .
It currently has some drawbacks as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except with Google's version you can:1.
Access your documents on nearly any OS2.
Access your documents from anywhere there is a web browser and internet3.
Don't have to buy any overpriced  software4.
Get new features automatically5.
Can still have offline access6.
Can edit simultaneously with other users7.
Can chat with said users above8.
Can administer security in a simple way by email addresses9.
Can create a publicly viewable web version that automatically updates with almost zero effort.Obviously, I could go on, but Google's approach does have a lot of benefits.
It currently has some drawbacks as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468662</id>
	<title>Security is important</title>
	<author>1,$d</author>
	<datestamp>1268490300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The spec has to have a rock-solid security model required for implementors, and a good security test suite must be freely available.  Without these, the database will turn out to be a major hack vector. With a great security model, we only have to worry about bugs.  As it stands, the spec covers security very lightly.

</p><p>
The spec has these sections that mean people are at least thinking about security. I hope there are actual security experts involved:

</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/#privacy" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">4. Privacy</a> [w3.org]</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/#authorization" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">5. Authorization</a> [w3.org] - especially:</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/#implementation-risks" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">5.3 Implementation risks</a> [w3.org]
<br>
"Thus, strictly following the origin model described in this specification is important for user security."</li>
</ul><p>

If you want this thing to succeed, you have an interest in the security model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spec has to have a rock-solid security model required for implementors , and a good security test suite must be freely available .
Without these , the database will turn out to be a major hack vector .
With a great security model , we only have to worry about bugs .
As it stands , the spec covers security very lightly .
The spec has these sections that mean people are at least thinking about security .
I hope there are actual security experts involved : 4 .
Privacy [ w3.org ] 5 .
Authorization [ w3.org ] - especially : 5.3 Implementation risks [ w3.org ] " Thus , strictly following the origin model described in this specification is important for user security .
" If you want this thing to succeed , you have an interest in the security model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The spec has to have a rock-solid security model required for implementors, and a good security test suite must be freely available.
Without these, the database will turn out to be a major hack vector.
With a great security model, we only have to worry about bugs.
As it stands, the spec covers security very lightly.
The spec has these sections that mean people are at least thinking about security.
I hope there are actual security experts involved:


 4.
Privacy [w3.org]
 5.
Authorization [w3.org] - especially:
 5.3 Implementation risks [w3.org]

"Thus, strictly following the origin model described in this specification is important for user security.
"


If you want this thing to succeed, you have an interest in the security model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318</id>
	<title>Golden age of the web set to continue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268508480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally the new web technology that I'm most keen to get my hands on
is the <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Manipulating\_the\_browser\_history" title="mozilla.org">pushState/replaceState</a> [mozilla.org]
stuff that is going to be in the next release of Firefox after 3.6. It makes
it much easier to deal with forward/back in AJAX web apps</p><p>More on topic, it is good to see Microsoft looking to implement new
web technologies again.... if they implement much of HTML5 and they
seem to be doing that now and this new Indexed DB stuff it looks like the
Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally the new web technology that I 'm most keen to get my hands on is the pushState/replaceState [ mozilla.org ] stuff that is going to be in the next release of Firefox after 3.6 .
It makes it much easier to deal with forward/back in AJAX web appsMore on topic , it is good to see Microsoft looking to implement new web technologies again.... if they implement much of HTML5 and they seem to be doing that now and this new Indexed DB stuff it looks like the Golden Age of the web will continue for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally the new web technology that I'm most keen to get my hands on
is the pushState/replaceState [mozilla.org]
stuff that is going to be in the next release of Firefox after 3.6.
It makes
it much easier to deal with forward/back in AJAX web appsMore on topic, it is good to see Microsoft looking to implement new
web technologies again.... if they implement much of HTML5 and they
seem to be doing that now and this new Indexed DB stuff it looks like the
Golden Age of the web will continue for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465686</id>
	<title>fucking faggots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stop eating shit, you dirty birds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>stop eating shit , you dirty birds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop eating shit, you dirty birds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31477214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31469284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1659223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31469284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31467040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31479328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31470066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1659223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31465620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31466630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31468226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1659223.31477214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
