I guess the other problem is that it'll take another five years for browsers to implement HTML 5, even if everyone's really into the idea.
Aye, though the Mozilla and Apple teams are both on the HTML5 group (WHATWG), which seems to be going somewhere. A totally seperate thick client would probably take as long, I fear.
I do also feel that the language on the W3C site is still along the lines of "web applications".
"Why use one word when seventeen (in their own markup format) will do" is the W3C motto, I think. Though it is handy to differentiate between web applications and the client-side applications that run them.
― stet, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 20:37 (thirteen years ago) link
I agree about the thick client having the same problem as HTML5 (though they're both thick clients).
I agree - but I don't think they do distinguish (at least properly); currently, there are "web applications" and "non-web applications". The former run in a browser and the latter don't. The former are developed using one set of technologies and the latter a different set. I think this is a bad way of defining things. For me, there are (ideally):
- Applications that have whatever kind of GUI you want that access stuff over a network, possibly from a web server, but probably from something better (supporting things like publishing of events to clients, like HTML 5 seems to suggest a web server would need to)
- Applications that have whatever kind of GUI you want that don't access stuff over a network
Both would be built the same way. Accessing services over a network is just a case of making use of an appropriate library.
Pretty much, that just means you have "applications".
― Keith, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 20:43 (thirteen years ago) link
It is a point though, that some of the HTML 5 stuff would seem to suggest some significant changes needing made to servers as well as clients.
― Keith, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 20:48 (thirteen years ago) link
won't thick clients just tend towards becoming Word (say) but where all documents are saved on an external server?
and what about the Canvas additions to html? (which treat the browser window as a drawable object, for svg or whatever). which is tending towards X11 or something (but an X11 that is operating system neutral, albeit probably browser specific)
(oh, and btw, php has an include_once(). which may or may not work on windows.)
― koogs, Friday, 13 July 2007 16:28 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, I think that's about the size of it... Though the server would also deliver the executable (word) code, to control updates.
The canvas stuff isn't quite a set of widgets, though... Unless you want to write your own, drawing them with svg.
Didn't know about the include_once() thing. Sorry, I still think it's all a bit shit, PHP.
― Keith, Saturday, 14 July 2007 18:07 (thirteen years ago) link
― Bill in Chicago, Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:33 (thirteen years ago) link