Talk:Rich Internet Application/Archive 1

Archive 1

Patent threathens RIA?

I just learned today that there is a US patent granted today that (might?) threaten RIA:

See: U.S. Grants Patent For Broad Range Of Internet Rich Applications

See also: United States Patent 7,000,180 Balthaser February 14, 2006

In short:

"The patent--issued on Valentine's Day--covers all rich-media technology implementations, including Flash, Flex, Java, Ajax, and XAML, when the rich-media application is accessed on any device over the Internet, including desktops, mobile devices, set-top boxes, and video game consoles."

"It's kind of unbelievable that (the patent) has such a wide ranging use because it covers so many technologies," says Bola Rotibi, a senior analyst at Ovum, an IT advisory firm in London. If the patent is enforced broadly, she says, "anybody who does anything with rich applications will have to pay royalties to the company."

---

Presumably this only applies to companies that sell in the US. Stephen B Streater 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Java applets?

I think Java applets are the most popular and most powerful technique to implement RIA beside JavaScript. Why is it missing?

Promoting a product?

What's the policy on promoting a product on Wikipedia? I notice Backbase has put a plug for thier product in the Javascript section. Tumbarumba 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Backbase has not, I have put it there, more than two months ago. Until now, it wasn’t objectionable. The article mentions Macromedia and Laszlo, so I do not see the harm in mentioning a Javascript-based RIA product as well. Personally, I would like to see the text return (perhaps in different form), and not be easily dismissed as an advertisement. Grauw 08:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If I may quote: "Macromedia is one vendor in this area, whose Macromedia Flash technology includes Flash Communications Server, Central, Breeze and Flex, all of which are run in viewers' browsers within the Macromedia Flash Player which has a 98% penetration with current internet users." - talk about blatant advertising. Grauw 08:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Full agreement. If there's a section at the end regarding different libraries to create RIA's, perhaps it should be listed alongside its (better known) competitors. As it stands, it's a poorly-disguised advertisement stuck in a section it doesn't belong in.

Does the Hummingbird link constitute linkspam?

I originally put the Hummingbird link there believing that it should be mentioned as a very early pioneer of the concept and possibly still at the most leading edge. However, to avoid spam confusion problems, I removed that link. What we must identify is where is the fine line between history and spam. Microsoft, Google, Macromedia get almost universal access to the articles, while other companies do not. And many times I actually would like to know of the other players. Maybe we just need to find the right place for them. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

phrasing

the phrasing "we'll have to..." doesn't belong into a encyclopedia. unfortunately i feel unable to rewrite it into a better sentence. thanks.

• done. --Sleepyhead81 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition?

It would be nice to have a definition of a "Rich Internet Application", and a comparison to non-rich Internet applications. The article says

much richer user-interface options other than the standard HTML widgets available to browser-based Web applications. "Richer" functionality could be "Drag and Drop," using a slider to change data, calculation that happens on the client (e.g., an insurance rate calculator) and do not need to be sent back to the server, etc.

but all of these except for full drag-and-drop are easy to implement using standard Javascript. Does a client-side mortgage amortization calculator (using only Javascript and no server interaction) count as an RIA? How about one that does some server-side fetching for in-page updating using standard tricks?

Using javascript is a method, see AJAX, ria is just a type of application, not a type of implementation. Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about a ticker-type application that gets updates from the server without refreshing the page? Does gmail count as an RIA? How about a Java applet that interacts with the user but not the server? How about a Java applet that interacts with both the user and the server?

My guess is that the defining characteristics of RIAs are:

• Does not follow the Web model of each interaction creating a new "page".
• Uses in-page server interaction.

But its not that simple, because there is a continuoum here as well; Gmail sometimes loads a new page, sometimes just uses javascript to open another folder, and you can imagine different apps everywhere on this spectrum.. Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Or, a snarkier way to put it: breaks the Back button... --Macrakis 23:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This one doesn't work either, because you can maintain compatibility with the Back button without ever loading a new page, even in Flash =/ Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Of all the terms found so far I think "Rich Internet Application" comes closest but really means very little. A "rich application" is generally speaking a "desktop application". A rich internet application is the one that user Internet and is not restricted to HTTP. Possible examples: ICQ, Skype, IRC, FTP, telnet, etc. Since term "web" is more commonly associated with HTTP it may be more suitable to call this entire thing "Rich Web Application", but even that does not preclude, for example, browsers - they are rich and use HTTP. More precise though.

I put more about this and other issues related to this article and Ajax in my personal opinion page, as I did not want to 'polute' talk pages with so much text. Please read. You may just find that there's something good there.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the statement "RIAs typically transfer the processing necessary for the user interface to the Web client but keep the bulk of the data (i.e., maintaining the state of the program, the data etc) back on the application server." is incorrect. State is maintained in many cases on the client, that being part of the "rich" point. The client can handle much more responsibility without making a trip to the server. The server is necessary of course, to maintain state across sessions, and as a data source, but just using an app the state is on the client - in contrast to a traditional web app.

List

A list of RIA's should off course include all RIA's. 24SevenOffice is a RIA. I do work for the company but it's inclusion in the list is relevant. Please let me know if anyone think otherwise. --Sleepyhead81 10:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reminder for post-Ajax (Declarative Programming) VfD

A user has placed a WikiLink to Ajax (Declarative Programming) into the other techniques section; the article is undergoing VfD right now, since it appears to be non-notable original research created by the same user who has been a bit spammy with links to his own Ajax-technology-related company. Once the VfD is complete, if the article is deleted, we should be sure to restore the section back to its original state. Jason t c 13:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind; I just reverted the section to its state prior to the addition of the WikiLink. The discussion on the VfD page for the Ajax (Declarative Programming) article seems to support the notion that it's pure advertising; in any event, it certainly isn't notable enough to show up here, and it's seemingly original research to boot. Jason t c 15:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

List of Rich Internet Applications

List of Rich Internet Applications is short enough to join the main article. I propose a merge. -- Perfecto  03:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many pages like this. Jazzle 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want a merge. Instead, I would prefer the List of Rich Internet Applications to include a wider range of applications giving readers examples of what type of things are out there. The main article should be more abstract, talking about generalities, with the list giving specific examples. Stephen B Streater 10:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also it keeps the linkspam off of the main article. --Artw 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I vote against the merge. The list may be short now, but it will grow. Unless we want this to end up like the Bully article, we should keep the list separate. --Throbblefoot

Flash penetration

I am dubious of the figures given for Flash penetration. This is for several reasons, itemised below:

• As a publisher of Java software, I have been to a wide range of companies and have often found machines that run Java and not Flash, but never the other way round
• Java installed rate is in the high 90%s, similar to that claimed for Flash, but firewalls and security settings in practice limit this to around 90%
• I often go to websites which say "Upgrade your Flash to see this site". Although I have Flash, I don't have the right version of it - so although I have Flash, it is not useful for these sites
• The only figures for Flash penetration seem to come from Macromedia, who are not a neutral supplier
• As far as I know, Macromedia do not publish their methodology, so their figures (while possibly true) are not verifiable WP:V

So, unless someone can come up with verifiable independent source for this 98% figure, I propose new wording along the following lines:

Flash claim a penetration rate of around 98%, although this figure includes older versions. Security settings may also prevent Flash-enabled computers from viewing Flash pages over the internet.

What do people think? Stephen B Streater 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC large numbers of Windows machines do not have Java by default. --Artw 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen, but Java Live Connect for Gecko's engine is broken for a long time. So, RIA (Java Applets) are moving to Flash. You can not create dissent application that will communicate with browser's javascript. I'm tired of hackin' browsers, and I decided to drop Java on client side (a lot of IE users have installed Java 1.1 runtime), even all the stuff we're doing on server side is Java driven only. I have a doubt in 98% of penetration (I can see what's going on in the log files of differen web sites runni' Flash client side applications). --MaNeMeBasat 07:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I know how many people have Java from web logs, and it's lots. But the question is whether the 98% figure for Flash is reliable. I am looking for verifiable evidence from an independent source.

As a matter of interest, does this Java applet work with your Gecko engine? I can't remember off hand whether we only use Live Connect for live video transmissions. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your applet is runnin', no problem, but you do not interact with the webpage (I wrote about Java - JavaScript Live Connect, that means that you're callin' Java methods from JavaScript and vice versa). That's problem, and initialization of Live Connect takes long period of time. I wrote to these guys, but nothing happened for more than a year. Pure Java Applets embedded in the page are runnin' fine. That's it. --MaNeMeBasat 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad applet's working. Apple took a long time to get Live Connect workign too, but it works now. Stephen B Streater 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clarify a some of this information a little bit. The penetration statistics are gathered by a third party: NPD Online. For information on Flash Player penetration by version, see this page. There is also information on the methodology used for the survey at that location. --Daniel Dura, Developer Relations Product Manager, Adobe

Thanks. I'll add this info to the article when I get to a PC. While you're here, I asked whether the Flash article should really have been moved to Adobe and have a URL on the Flash site where it is called Macromedia Flash (see Adobe Flash talk page). What is the official name these days? Stephen B Streater 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried the second link, and it just gives the home page. Do you have a direct link to the stats? Stephen B Streater 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the Flash entry to say that the 98% figure is claimed by Macromedia and covers all versions of the plug-in. Stephen B Streater 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article title?

Shouldn't this article be named Rich internet application rather than Rich Internet Application per WP:MOS? --John Seward 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Rich Internet application Stephen B Streater 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rich Internet Application → Rich internet application … Rationale: WP:MOS on capitalisation, target page already exists --John Seward 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Given the capitals in the Internet article, I propose Rich Internet application. Stephen B Streater 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Rich Internet application. Stephen B Streater 10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised to find that this RM is still not closed, even though the page has already been moved without objection. What's the proper procedure for doing this? --John Seward 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it not closed? Stephen B Streater 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In the sense that the RM notice still appears on this talk page, and this discussion is not yet frozen with boilerplate. --John Seward 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure - Should the title not be Rich Internet Application, being that there is an acronym RIA for it? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But then, on the other hand, "to be announced" is TBA. Stephen B Streater 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the heading to the talk page to reflect the move having happened. When I made the move, I also moved these links, so any move somewhere else should receive a clear consensus. Stephen B Streater 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Geabios

So how did geabios.com end up our flagship RIA? It seems a rather odd example, and not a particularly high quality one. Artw 23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly FORscene is much more impressive ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually page, mentioned above, is an example where you can find almost all the techniques mentioned in the article (no one's talking about flagship in this case). It will be fine to add one or two images, there are some mentioned in the article (add the screen shot). Oh, yes, Stephen, your applet is blocking audio after I close the browser (Java's runnin' still in the background, I have to kill manually the process (Linux-FF)). --MaNeMeBasat 10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect definition for RIA

Early on in the text, RIA's are described as:

"RIAs typically: run in a web browser, or do not require software installation"

This is not technically true as two primary platforms for RIAs namely "Java" and "Adobe Flash/Flex" both require a software installation. In actual fact, the statement "run in a web browser" is incorrect as well as some recent RIA frameworks completely bypass the browser. I believe Adobe will launch a new version of Flex running as a desktop application. Similarly, Microsoft's WPF can also be regarded as a RIA.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we need to rethink the definition of a "Rich Internet Application".

41.242.217.166 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you may be confusing a statement about an RIA, which is a type of Web application, with the characteristics of platform technologies or Web application frameworks. Just because the platform software needs to be installed does not invalidate the statement that "RIAs typically run in a web browser, or do not require software installation". Java and Flash are platform technologies, not applications. Perhaps that distinction needs to be made clear?

I am more concerned about the third bullet, which says: "can be 'occasionally connected' wandering in and out of hot-spots or from office to office". In my experience, RIAs must be connected to the Internet to function. Desktop applications which can connect to a Web server do not qualify as RIAs, in my opinion, but I am open to being persuaded that I am making an artificial distinction here. So, can anyone cite applications on the List of rich Internet applications for which this bullet is true? I suggest we modify or remove the bullet based on the response to this poll.

In general, as long as the definition describes RIAs "typically," we can use the List of rich Internet applications to judge its accuracy. If you have counter-examples that you believe would require a change to the definition, they should first be accepted on that list. Let's be consistent.

Chris Loosley 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded with any evidence to support the third bullet, I am going to edit the definition to remove the suggestion that offline support is a typical feature of RIAs. There is ample evidence that lack of offline support is actually the one feature that distinguishes RIAs from desktop applications, for example:

"Many ask this question, why offline support while Internet connection is becoming more and more accessible and fast over the world. The answer is simply because offline support is now the only thing missing to make web applications seriously compete with Desktop. AJAX and RIA was a step into the user interface and made web applications more interactive ...". | Ajax Magazine, June 5, 2007

Chris Loosley 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved 'offline operation' from the definition of a typical RIA to the section listing shortcomings and restrictions. I believe this is a much more accurate reflection of the situation in 2007.

Chris Loosley 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

smart client

Is this the same as a Smart client? Pizzachicken 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

The list of external links seems to be attracting linkspam. We do not need to list every site or blog about RIAs -- see these policies WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK. The following links do not appear to add much value, so I am deleting them:

• Light-and-flash.com Most commented news about Adobe Flex and Microsoft Silverlight technologies
• Riawars.com Community site dedicated to Rich Internet Application innovations
• http://www.bedesk.net BeDesk - Building the global interface
• http://www.quieromirar.com.ar Web 2.0 an RIA application for photo sharing and retouching
• http://www.riapt.org Comunidade Portuguesa de Desenvolvimento de Rich Internet Applications

Chris Loosley 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The See Also section is also extremely long. Wouldn't linking to a few "List of ... frameworks" be enough?--Adoniscik (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Even the very title of this article suggests NPOV. "Rich" internet application? How so? --Treekids 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

If it's "Rich Internet Application", the a should be capitalized. If it's "rich internet application", the I should be lowercase. Regardless, it's wrong. --Treekids 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Internet is a specific internet.--Adoniscik (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Further information: Internet capitalization conventions

Where is AJAX

AJAX is clearly the top "rich internet" technology today but it doesn't seem to be here at all. What is this, a Microsoft fanboy page? --Treekids 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asynchronous Modification

I updated the section discussing asynchronousness. The wording presented it as if the communication protocol was asynchronous which is not the case. It is still synchronous HTTP. The asynchronousness is acquired by communicating while the user in viewing or in other ways interacting with the page. I suspect that the author of that paragraph new that and just wrote a bit of ambiguous English. It is also possible for there to be asynchronous communication mechanisms used but this is not what was being discussed in the paragraph nor is it as common as the asynchronous communication and page interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Smithline (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of RIA Platforms / Approaches

I have removed this section for two reasons:

1. It sounded much like an advertisment for the frameworks/platforms mentioned.
2. We do not need to list every RIA framework out there. Currently, this section takes up half the article, and it shouldn't.

If anyone wants to make a short list of notable frameworks, go ahead, but do not bring back that section without first discussing it here. Thanks. — ^FatalError 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all the links currently in the See also section for the same reason, and replaced them with links to more relevant articles. Feel free to add some, as long as they aren't RIA frameworks/platforms. — ^FatalError 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Created a category which naturally enforces the notability requirements so as to maintain order -- samj _in^out 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: Category:Rich Internet application frameworks

This article seems very slanted towards the browser.

This page seems to lean very heavily towards browser based applications. The term "RIA" is used far wider than just the likes of GMail etc. There isn't a general consensus of where the boundaries of "RIA" lie (the term has been heavily abused, not unlike "Web 2.0"), yet I don't see any evidence of this in the article. Given that the term is Rich Internet Application, not Rich Web Application, and was initially coined in relation to Flash, how can the article justify such a browser/Ajax-heavy slant?

I'd suggest a neutral headline definition, akin to:

"Rich Internet Applications are a class of online user facing software with the interface richness of a desktop application, but the omnipresence of a web page. Typically RIAs do not require permanent installation onto the user's computer, but do require a foundation layer of software to be present, such as a browser or virtual machine."

...this then allows the various interpretations of RIAs to be explored in the body of the article, including Ajax, AIR, Flash, Java (Web Start/JavaFX) and Silverlight.

The article should also surely mention the controversy (in some parts) as to whether Google Earth, Skype, etc are considered RIAs. JavaKid (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Debugging techniques

The following verbosity may be useful elsewhere (eg Ajax):

Use of RIA technology poses several new Service Level Management (SLM) challenges, not all of which are completely solved today. SLM concerns are not always the focus of application developers, and are rarely if ever perceived by application users, but they are vital to the successful delivery of an online application. Aspects of the RIA architecture that complicate management processes are:

• RIA architecture breaks the Web page paradigm. Traditional Web applications can be viewed as a series of Web pages, each of which requires a distinct download, initiated by an HTTP GET request. This model has been characterized as the Web page paradigm. RIAs invalidate this model, introducing additional asynchronous server communications to support a more responsive user interface. In RIAs, the time to complete a page download may no longer correspond to something a user perceives as important, because (for example) the client engine may be prefetching some of the downloaded content for future use. New measurement techniques must be devised for RIAs, to permit reporting of response time quantities that reflect the user's experience. In the absence of standard tools that do this, RIA developers must instrument their application code to produce the measurement data needed for SLM.

• Asynchronous communication makes it harder to isolate performance problems. Paradoxically, actions taken to enhance application responsiveness also make it harder to measure, understand, report on, and manage responsiveness. Some RIAs do not issue any further HTTP GET requests from the browser after their first page, using asynchronous requests from the client engine to initiate all subsequent downloads. The RIA client engine may be programmed to continually download new content and refresh the display, or (in applications using the Comet approach) a server-side engine can keep pushing new content to the browser over a connection that never closes. In these cases, the concept of a "page download" is no longer applicable. These applications are commonly known as refreshless. These complications make it harder to measure and subdivide application response times, a fundamental requirement for problem isolation and service level management. Tools designed to measure traditional Web applications may -- depending on the details of the application and the tool -- report such applications either as a single Web page per HTTP request, or as an unrelated collection of server activities. Neither description reflects what is really happening at the application level.

• The client engine makes it harder to measure response time. For traditional Web applications, measurement software can reside either on the client machine or on a machine that is close to the server, provided that it can observe the flow of network traffic at the TCP and HTTP levels. Because these protocols are synchronous and predictable, a packet sniffer can read and interpret packet-level data, and infer the user’s experience of response time by tracking HTTP messages and the times of underlying TCP packets and acknowledgments. But the RIA architecture reduces the power of the packet sniffing approach, because the client engine breaks the communication between user and server into two separate cycles operating asynchronously -- a foreground (user-to-engine) cycle, and a background (engine-to-server) cycle. Both cycles are important, because neither stands alone; it is their relationship that defines application behavior. But that relationship depends only on the application design, which cannot (in general) be inferred by a measurement tool, especially one that can observe only one of the two cycles. Therefore the most complete RIA measurements can only be obtained using tools that reside on the client and observe both cycles.

-- samj _in^out 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Desktop Apps in web browsers using Compiler Technology

is there any particular reason why technology that quite literally turns a web browser into a desktop widget set framework has been been removed from this article? DOM model manipulation uses a web browser as a "canvas", as the basis for creating widget sets. the widget sets are written in high-level languages such as Ruby, Java or Python. the compilers turn these high-level languages and the widget set libraries into javascript. the javascript manipulates the DOM model. the DOM model gives access to drawing, buttons, text display and much more - all the "basics" of a desktop widget set that use exactly the same underlying technology to achieve the same effect.

therefore, logically, going through a (rather long) chain, Compiler Technology and the associated Widget Sets can be classified as RIAs, if you classify RIAs as being "similar to desktop apps".

in fact, just to prove the point, i've writing a window manager - in python - to be compiled to javascript, to run in a web browser, using RXR as the NPAPI-compliant plugin that embeds the application actually _in_ the web browser.

answers to the question at the top of this section on a postcard, pleeeease.

Lkcl (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

G'day luke - long time no "see". Still doing Samba stuff these days?

hiya sam - thanks for making me feel welcome here. lots of people "took over" the samba arena, thinking they could do better. ten years on we're still no closer to having a free software MSDN-compatible (mingw-compatible) replacement for e.g. DCOM - but that's all a whole different story :) Lkcl (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway you raise a valid point in that some people (typically those pushing some kind of web app and/or ajax toolkit) like to strap themseves to the RIA bandwagon for whatever reason. Problem is that the overwhelming majority of people equate RIA to proprietary plugins like flash & silverlight so Ajax as an RIA is something of a WP:FRINGE theory.

go to http://google.com. type in "ria javascript frameworks", and watch the number of searches / popularity listed in the dropdown. note the whopping large number: 1.7 million people searching for the phrase "ria javascript frameworks". that is hardly "fringe" Lkcl (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

well, you see, there's a difference between a "static" ajax toolkit and things like GWT and Pyjamas. GWT, pyjamas (and RWT if the RubyJS developer got some funding) _literally_ turn the concept of "web browser" on its head. you really _can_ write desktop-like applications in java or python or ruby and have them run in the web browser. with a "static" ajax toolkit, due to the ... how-to-say... "burden" that javascript places on developers, it's much less obvious, and much less desirable. by contrast, over half the questions we get on the pyjamas-dev mailing list are from total novices. when i say novices, i mean people who've never done web programming in their lives, or who've never done User-Interfaces before, and in some cases people who've never done python (but are experienced web programmers). Lkcl (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

also, it doesn't help that Ajax (programming) refers to this page! Lkcl (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that the overwhelming majority of web applications these days have a combination of flash and/or ajax, in which case you may as well merge this article with the web application article.

naah - it has a specific purpose, to distinguish between web apps and the more complex ones. "traditional" web apps do most of the work server-side. there is a grey area where people start throwing in a leeetly bit of AJAX. and then there is the "whole hog" method, where the _entire_ web page is constructed not from HTML but from DOM model manipulation (using "pure" javascript) and the content is fetched using JSONRPC, XMLRPC, REST layouts - all AJAX basically. so whilst that's still "web application", it's also "RIA" in mine and many other peoples' minds. Lkcl (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use terms like "desktop equivalent" to describe such "native web applications" in that if RIA is to retain any meaning whatsoever then it should be reserved for proprietary/browser plugins (possibly treating the Ajax fringe theory in a sub-section).

:) i do, already the thing is that people already refer to complex AJAX apps as "RIA"s, as you can see from e.g. Ajax (programming) Lkcl (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that all makes sense to you - look forward to hearing your thoughts. -- samj _in^out 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Curl

It has been used for several years in the Curl community. It also seems like I have read a number of blogs which use it in the general sense as used in this article. Fred Birchmore (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The term is almost always used to refer to browser-based plugins, usually in contrast to Ajax interfaces (see Tim Bray on the future of the web). This includes Flash, Silverlight, Curl, etc. but not Ajax - given the few references that use the term in this fashion it's more like a fringe theory. Definitely not Flash specific though. -- samj _in^out 07:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"the term is almost always used to refer to browser-based plugins". no - that's wrong, too. [1] Lkcl (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The interpreter can also be written in JavaScript. For instance take a look at Ajax.org PlatForm and Backbase. These frameworks employ Ajax for communication, but are conceptually and syntactical similar to Adobe Flex and XAML. I believe that a web application can be described as a Rich Internet Application, if they function as a traditional client-server applications (with complete separation of application-source and data), where both the application as the data are delivered over HTTP. The technology used to display the application at the client is not relevant. Having a definition stating something among the lines of 'build in anything, except the browser' doesn't sound right. Also the term 'Rich Internet Application' (coined in 2000) pre-dates the term Ajax (coined in 2005), so the definition as an RIA could never state that it is non-Ajax. See this article by James Governor --Adaniels.nl (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The other area I have seen it used is in Java applets / web-start programs. It seems to cover any rich internet applications, in fact. It's just the Adobe lot are more vocal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

yep. [2] Lkcl (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Java applets & JWS are without doubt RIAs. Per RIAstats: "Provides statistics on Flash, Silverlight and Java plugin deployments." -- samj _in^out 11:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What Webkit brings to the party

Webkit needs a special mention, because it is the technology behind:

• Adobe AIR
• Google Chrome
• AppCelerator
• Palm's new "WebOS"
• Safari
• IPhone mobile Browser
• Nokia S60 mobile browser

the fact that it's behind Adobe AIR and AppCelerator should give a _really_ big clue that the distinction really _is_ being blurred between RIA and "Web Browser". in the context of the current page, i just can't think of a way to write it in. Lkcl (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

--144.36.251.67 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)--144.36.251.67 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Strike-through text

Webkit is a browser engine - without an extension it has nothing to do with RIA. Check out this more formal (if far from perfect) definition:

One distinguishing feature of an RIA (in contrast to other Web-based applications) is the *client engine* that *intermediates between the user and the application server*. The client engine downloads when the RIA launches. The engine can be augmented during subsequent operation with additional downloads in which *the engine acts as a browser extension to handle the user interface and server communications*.

Now I'm sure you'll argue that Javascript libraries (like Pyjamas - the one you advertise being lead developer of) could be classed a "client engine" but you're missing the point - it's all about extensions. -- samj _in^out 11:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

I moved my copious comment into the Evidence #11 spot. It seemed to fit the format here better.

R39525 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

i'm waiting for the person who keeps making the reverts to acknowledge the evidence presented Lkcl (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (update: the person who keeps making the edit reverts, samj, has responded, with the claim that javascript-only usage is capable of creating "rich" media applications is a "fringe theory".) Lkcl (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Between these two links is a convincing argument that JavaScript based methods of mocking up RIA-like technology is not true RIA technology, but simply "hacks built on top of hacks": technology highjacked to do things that they were never intended to do. The problem is that the term "AJAX" is a buzzword with a blurred and often misunderstood meaning, allowing you do find those millions of "hits" linking the term to RIA. Ajax is not an "application", since when the term is used it typically refers to a kludge of various website manipulation scripting technologies rather than a compiled application running in a standard VM, therefore Ajax stands out from the crowd and cannot be RIA in the same sense as Flex, Silverlight, or JavaFX. Wikipedia can handle this issue more objectively by omitting Ajax "frameworks" from the list of RIA technologies, but providing an additional section dedicated to the popular trend of calling Ajax/DHTML websites and "frameworks" RIAs to address your concerns. Garoad (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've resolved this issue once and for all with this text:

Users generally need to install a software framework using the computer's operating system before launching the application, which typically downloads, updates, verifies and executes the RIA. This is the main differentiator from Javascript-based alternatives like Ajax, which use built-in browser functionality to implement comparable interfaces. While some consider such interfaces to be RIAs, some consider them competitors to RIAs and others, including Gartner, treat them as similar but separate technologies.

Unfortunately I think we'll still see a bunch of people trying to lump Ajax with RIA (for whatever reason). -- samj _in^out 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am from the Bunch of People - just thought I'd make my absolute astonishment known. Samj you are so completely out of line with this new version of a solid article that I cannot say more politely. Lkcl you appear to be overwhelmed in this so-called dispute despite your so-called evidence, and unfortunately I do not really know how to help out. I tend to shy away from this level of dispute simply because it seems not worth the time if a persistent editor is so bent on destroying helpful content for whatever reasons. I could be learning new open web technologies like canvas. HTML5 will soon lay all this discussion to rest, so probably the best approach is to give in and let the Other Bunch of People own the RIA terminology, if its that important to them. I think the single edit I will make is to prominently link to the HTML5 article, which hopefully cannot be resculpted like this one has been. I expect this small change to be disputed - but maybe reason will prevail! Good luck and best to both of you. KTyson (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both assuming good faith and being civil in a the same edit - we definitely need more editors who offer constructive criticism in a friendly and useful fashion. On a more serious note, bundling Ajax with RIA is definitely not a universal view (I have reliable sources to justify this point) so I think the treatment, above, is not all that bad. Wikipedia is not a host for essays, blogs and opinion pieces so if you want to include your view then make sure you have reliable sources to justify it (as I have). Certainly sprinkling the article with references to Ajax in a competitive fashion ("but with Ajax you don't need to install anything" etc.) is not helpful, except possibly within a section dedicated to the topic. -- samj _in^out 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally the HTML5 article is a fine addition, and unlike this article before I got to it, it's well-referenced, neutral, doesn't read like an advertisement, contains no original research and doesn't require cleanup. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and scientists (like myself) tend to prefer to have evidence (in line with policy). -- samj _in^out 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Underlying this dispute seems to be a fundamental disagreement about terminology. In my view, RIA is an umbrella term that subsumes individual technologies and implementation methods, like Flash, Ajax, Comet, etc. How can we justify having long and detailed articles about these Web technologies and implementation approaches, while at the same time gutting the article that introduces this whole subject? The RIA is a phase in the evolution of the application of Web technology. Before it was gutted, this article contained material about issues relevant to the construction, delivery, and management of interactive applications over the Web, regardless of the platform used. For an analogy in another field, look at Gramophone record. We needed to evolve the article about RIA in the direction of an overview like that, not strip out content that provides a perspective on this aspect of the direction of Web technology, leaving just a list of bullets.Chris Loosley (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content must be verifiable, per policy. -- samj _in^out 11:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Evidence"

Evidence #1 Here is yet more evidence [3] that the term "RIA" is used, in common everyday usage, to refer to javascript-only applications - in the case of this book, published by Apress, called "Pro HTML5 Programming: Powerful APIs for Richer Internet Application Development", it's dedicated to HTML5 tricks - but it is nonetheless specifically about HTML5 and has nothing to do with browser plugins whatsoever. A promotional piece for a book is not a reliable source, and in any case it talks about "Powerful APIs for Richer Internet Application Development". -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #2 Here is yet more evidence [4] that the term "RIA" applies to yet another AJAX (pure javascript) framework. it can therefore logically be concluded that the term "RIA" used to refer, perhaps exclusively and perhaps incorrectly, to adobe and other plugins, but that modern advances in browser technology and javascript frameworks very obviously are perfectly capable of being used to create applications that are "Rich", and this MUST now be acknowledged in the page, otherwise, wikipedia is being utilised to spread false information. that's unacceptable. Lkcl (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I get the impression that the term "RIA" is used primarily within the Adobe Flash community. Is there evidence to suggest that this term is used elsewhere to justify the article's inclusion of other technologies? --mkorman (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC) A blog (especially Slashdot) talking about a review talking about a book is not a reliable source either. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #3 here is a link to a book that is being published that desribes GWT, which is PURELY JAVASCRIPT, as a "RIA framework". [5]. the current page, describing "only plugins" as "RIAs" is deceiving readers and not reflecting reality. pyjamas [6] is also a "RIA framework", and, thanks to the desktop version, the distinction between "RIA", "web", and "desktop application" is now entirely blurred. when people used to "just pu' up a few webuhh pagizz" comprising nothing but some static html and a few snippets of javascript, i could not agree more that even a comprehensive javascript-led framework such as dojo, prototype etc. etc. could not be called a "RIA framework". but for these PURE JAVASCRIPT frameworks such as GWT and Pyjamas, there _isn't_ any HTML; the whole process is turned on its head, and you're talking in terms of widgets not "random bits of javascript and HTML". so - this page needs to start reflecting reality, and take into account that the term is not "owned" by "plugins". Lkcl (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC) You said it yourself: "the distinction between "RIA", "web", and "desktop application" is now entirely blurred". It's Wikipedia's job to make sense of the differences, not mix everything together. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #4 this article: [7] has a better overview of what RIA is than the current page! it describes the three types of RIA (as the author sees it) as being divided into "ubiquity, industrial strength and 'fancy animations'." It's a bit unfair to describe adobe flash as "fancy animations", especially now with things like GWTCanvas [8] and that being also ported to pyjamas [9] . Lkcl (talk) Opinion pieces on blogs are definitely not reliable sources. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The referenced blog is either EXTREMELY old or of poor quality if it talks about "Flash RIA" without using the term Flex even once. Summarizing what is arguably the leading and most mature Rich Internet Application technology as "fancy animations" is ludicrous and, if anything, only demonstrates the superior nature of the technology. Also, the Ajax box should be replaced with another category in true RIA-tech called Silverlight. - Garoad (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Evidence #5 uhh, you only have to look at the template / category [Category:Rich_Internet_application_frameworks] to see that there is much more than "just adobe AIR and silverlight" on it. Lkcl (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Sure, people spam categories all the time - there's all sorts of products in cloud computing categories that don't belong there. What's your point? -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #6 another post [10] in which the author was genuinely suprised by how "RICH" the google maps "INTERNET APPLICATION" is. he points out that he doesn't _like_ the fact that this javascript-only application is pissing all over the ground that is considered by some to be the exclusive reserve of Flash and Silverlight / Moonlight, but he grudgingly adjusts his world view to encompass the thought that mayyyybe the phrase "RIA" should refer to the "design practice" rather than the "specific practice of installing a plugin". which is a bit ridiculous, because if you _can_ design something that has the characteristics of a "Rich Internet Application" in pure javascript, and the design is encompassed in a "framework", then that framework IS a RIA framework. essentially, then, it is NOT the job of this page to dictate HOW a RIA framework comes about, but to merely define the characteristics and then list any instances of programming efforts that fulfil those characteristics. Lkcl (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Another unreliable source. Look at it like this... X11 provides rich applications over the Internet but you wouldn't argue it's an RIA now, would you? The purpose of the term is to categories richer internet applications than web applications. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #7 The W3 working group's "accessibility" specification, http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ makes specific and explicit mention of "rich internet applications". no mention of "browser plugins" are made. The WAI-ARIA overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.php makes specific mention of AJAX and DHTML applications in connection with "rich internet applications". no mention of "browser plugins" are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) update: i didn't realise that ARIA actually _stands_ for "accessible rich internet applications", until i saw this, from apple's web site - http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html ARIA Support Safari supports Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA). The ARIA standard helps web developers make dynamic web content more accessible for people with disabilities. With ARIA, sites taking advantage of advanced technologies like AJAX and JavaScript can now easily interoperate with assistive technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC) This is probably the most compelling "evidence" you've provided and even then it's not all that useful as it fails to define the term, rather uses it "in connection" with it as you observe. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #8 this is specific evidence that, in the minds of the general public, that the words "RIA" and "Javascript" are specifically linked. go to http://google.com. type in "ria javascript frameworks" watch the number of searches / popularity listed in the dropdown. note the whopping large number: 1.7 million people searching for the phrase "ria javascript frameworks". that is hardly "fringe". so it doesn't matter what we want to "define" RIA as being: the plain simple fact of the matter is that the phrase "rich internet application" is being taken over by the "javascript" crowd. whether that's with good reasons or whether it is with bad reasons, failure to accept ongoing improvements in browser technology indicates a failure of wikipedia to reflect reality. in other words, by continuing to claim that RIAs are "just java" or that RIAs can "only be achieved through a browser plugin such as flash, silverlight of java" is deceiving readers it's lying. THAT is the reason why i am here on this page, providing all the evidence that i can find, NOT because i am the lead developer of the pyjamas project. Lkcl (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC) This is the most compelling evidence against your claim thus far - the same search excluding javascript returns ten times that number of results. In any case Google search results are not "evidence" for Wikipedia debates, as you would know if you ever tried to use one in an AfD debate. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Evidence #9 http://qooxdoo.org/ - i'll quote directly from their home page, the very first words: qooxdoo is a comprehensive and innovative framework for creating rich internet applications (RIAs). Leveraging object-oriented JavaScript allows developers to build impressive cross-browser applications. No HTML, CSS nor DOM knowledge is needed. qooxdoo is quite a popular javascript-only framework. this is yet more evidence that the phrase "RIA" is being used outside of the definition that is being force-fed by the reverts to the main article. Lkcl (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Your own Pyjamas library also wants to associate itself with the RIA community, does it not? If it at all surprising then that one of your competitors is doing the same? No. In any case, unreliable. -- samj inout 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) it is not "my" library. it is free software to which several people including myself contribute. thank you for making this mistake. i now understand why you are having difficulty with accepting the evidence presented to you. from considerable experience, i've found that people who make the mistake of associating the "person" with "ownership of code" also have other issues that make reasoned discussion impractical and unlikely to succeed. on this basis, please consider standing down from contributing to and editing wikipedia pages, until such time as you have resolved the issues that are hinted at by your mistake. Lkcl (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Evidence #10 A recent slashdot article http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/05/2311241 "According to Google, by enabling and allowing developers to use the same tools that Google uses, they can not only build rich applications but also make the Web really fast." those "rich" "applications" are on the "internet". thus providing further evidence that the use of the phrase "rich internet applications" is associated in people's minds with "javascript", when the said "javascript" meets certain high-level functional criteria. Evidence #11 I don't have a dog in this race but, after reading the article, I agree that it is poorly written. I'm not familiar with Sliverlight but Flash and Java are computer languages with extensive libraries that support creating apps that run in browsers. I think JavaScript/AJAX are the same. Perhaps the only difference is that Flash and Java must be added to the browser whereas JavaScript is built in. From the first paragraph: This is the main differentiator from Javascript-based alternatives like Ajax which use built-in browser functionality to implement comparable interfaces. Being build-in isn't a meaningful attribute of RIA. If that's the only difference then if a browser was delivered with Flash integrated into it by default, would it stop being an RIA platform? I don't think so. There are several WYSIWYG editors implemented in JavaScript. I think they present a rich text interface. Of course they need server side support to complete the picture as do all the platforms under discussion. What I think is needed is a list of attributes that describe what makes an RIA rich and differentiates them from other HTML-only pages. How can we make this article independent of the technology that implements RIA? Then perhaps give some frameworks as examples. In fact I think some examples of RIAs on the Internet would be quite useful. One that impresses me that uses Flash is Aviary.com, a whole suite of web based graphics and sound editing tools. Update: here's a definition of RIA: Rich Internet Application (RIA) — a web application whose functionality and interface capabilities are identical or close to its desktop analogs. The other important specific of RIA is that it can work in offline mode. Citation Do you think an RIA has to work off-line to really be RIA? Here's another unsatisfying definition of RIA but they do give an example, PixiPaint. Web 2.0 / Web Application / Rich Internet Application (RIA) Web 2.0 is a term used to describe the next stage of the internet where people do more things on the internet rather than on their own computer and web-pages are not just static pages of information. This includes doing things in a web-browser such as reading your mail or word-processing. These online programs are known as Web Applications (or Web-apps) or Rich Internet Applications (RIA). An example of a RIA is the Pixie Paint! program on this website. This website is typical of a Web 2.0 site. Update 2: I found some citations in many current books that may indicate that many authors consider AJAX, JavaScript and the many JavaScript frameworks to be platforms to be a major factor in creating RIAs. This author thinks that JavaScript is the most important of the RIA platforms. TITLE: Understanding AJAX: Using JavaScript to Create Rich Internet Applications Internet applications bring huge benefits to the table when compared to a normal application. They are highly accessible, require no installation, can be upgraded at any time, and offer access to large amounts of data without complex networks. These advantages allow for a shorter time to market, as well as lower development and support costs, when compared to a native application. Even though Internet applications usually have poorer usability due to their simpler, less interactive interfaces and slow update times, they are replacing native applications everywhere you look. A Rich Internet Application (RIA) is an Internet application that attempts to bridge the usability gap between native applications and normal Internet ones. It contains more code on the browser, which offers higher levels of interactivity and an experience similar to native applications. With RIAs, it's possible to use many technologies, such as Flash, Java, and ActiveX, but the most important one is JavaScript. Because JavaScript is provided directly by the browser instead of being an add-on like the other technologies, you can get the most benefit from the least amount of work. By: Joshua Eichorn Publisher: Prentice Hall Pub. Date: August 11, 2006 Print ISBN-10: 0-13-221635-3 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-13-221635-7 I like this quote because it does a good job of defining what an RIA is without regard to how it's implemented. TITLE: JavaFX™: Developing Rich Internet Applications A Rich Internet Application is an application that allows a good portion of the application to execute on the user’s local system. Primarily, the client application is designed to perform those functions that enhance the user’s experience. Furthermore, communications with the server do not have to be initiated from a user action, like clicking on a button. Instead, a server itself can update the client with fresh content asynchronously as needed and without waiting for the end user to perform some action or by employing other tricks in the client like periodically polling the server. So what is old is new again. In a sense this is true, but this really represents an evolution of the client server paradigm rather than a retrenchment back to the old days of the monolithic program that did everything. The key to a Rich Internet Application is striking the proper balance between behavior that should stay on the client with the behavior that rightfully belongs on the server. JavaFX is a framework that embraces the Rich Internet Application model. By: Jim Clarke; Jim Connors; Eric Bruno Publisher: Prentice Hall Pub. Date: June 01, 2009 Print ISBN-10: 0-13-701287-X Print ISBN-13: 978-0-13-701287-9 Web ISBN-10: 0-13-701352-3 Web ISBN-13: 978-0-13-701352-4 TITLE: Grails 1.1 Web Application Development Chapter 11. AJAX and RIA Frameworks We are going to enhance the user experience of our application by using AJAX and Rich Internet Application (RIA) frameworks. We will see how Grails provides built-in support for AJAX, and then introduce a plug-in that provides a number of components based on popular user interface design patterns. The enhancements we will implement in this chapter are: To allow tags to be updated through AJAX To automatically suggest existing tags when a user is tagging content To use a tag cloud to filter content by tags By: Jon Dickinson Publisher: Packt Publishing Pub. Date: May 27, 2009 Print ISBN-13: 978-1-847196-68-2 TITLE: The Design of Sites: Patterns for Creating Winning Web Sites, Second Edition Glossary: Rich Internet Application (RIA)A Web application that provides a high level of interactivity and functionality similar to a traditional desktop application. AJAX is one set of technologies that enables such applications. By: Douglas K. van Duyne; James A. Landay; Jason I. Hong Publisher: Prentice Hall Pub. Date: December 14, 2006 Print ISBN-10: 0-13-134555-9 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-13-134555-3 I captured eight citations that indicate that the authors believe that JavaScript/AJAX is a platform good for implementing RIAs. It is the whole purpose of the first book cited above. This is from the first two of six pages of results in a search of the Safari Bookshelf application. The search was for the term rich internet application. Many of the books were about Silverlight, Flash, Flex, Air and others. I couldn't take the time to grab more. So I think this makes a compelling case for JavaScript/AJAX to be included in this article about RIA. But I haven't contributed much here before so correct me if I'm off base. Warmest regards, R39525 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit war appears stupid to me. Where is the usage question? RIA sounds like a usage description — I'm going to make another posting at the end to lift the usage question. But here:

1. There are no terms in the market, or every term is predestined to be definition-violated the next time an advertizement is made.
2. Ajax seems more like a set of PLs/markup-lans in opposition to RIA, so why the confusion? Maybe because s/w producers seem to react uncontrolledly, and immediately, when seeing a problem, perceive the "obvious" solution — a problem (usage topic) is distinct from a solution (a "technology"), a mature s/w producer distinguishes problem from solution.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Restore

Can someone restore the original page. The new page does not reflect true browser based RIA applications and appears to be promotional content added by Adobe. Wilfrednilsen (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unforutnately [for you] the "new page" is well sourced, was written mostly by someone completely independent of any of the RIAs and reflects the general consensus of what an RIA is. The only contentious issue is whether sites with JavaScript (99%+ of the web today) should be considered RIA but this is at best a WP:FRINGE theory and in any case inclusion makes the term completely meaningless and pretty much synonymous with web application. -- samj _in^out 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry sam: see evidence to the contrary, listed above, which also includes evidence of large numbers of people performing web searches for phrases including the words "RIA" and "javascript"; includes evidences of published books on HTML5 and javascript; and includes evidence of well-known web frameworks which are javascript-only and use the words "javascript" and "RIA" in the same sentence. Lkcl (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the two are not related, but for the term RIA to retain any meaning whatsoever it needs to refer to something specific - and for the vast majority of people it does - Flash, Silverlight & Java. -- samj _in^out 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry _again_, sam: i just looked at the web application page, and _that_ page is also disputed, in particular over the definition of "web application" and "rich internet application". this tends to suggest that the ongoing and continuous "upgrade" of the HTML specification(s) and the inclusion of javascript is turning things so much on their heads that yes, people can't decide or work out where a "webuhh applucashunnn" ends and where "RIA" begins. Lkcl (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's nice but it's another article altogether, and it's not clear to me at all that the dispute is about RIAs anyway, rather neutrality and web apps as the future of app development. -- samj _in^out 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original page was much better than what is there now. Maybe the original article was on the long side, but what was once a comprehensive and useful discussion of RIA concepts has been reduced to a relatively incoherent stub through a whole series of edits that seem to have mostly just discarded text wholesale, rather than editing it to improve the article's readability. And the claim, stated above, that the term RIA is equivalent to "Flash, Silverlight & Java" is puzzling. How can enabling technologies be equivalent to an application delivery concept? That is like equating the Sybase, Informix, and SQL Server database products to the concept of Client/Server computing. If that kind of thinking was the motivation for the massive deletions, then someone with a broader perspective needs to work on restoring much of the useful, but currently deleted, discussion of the RIA concept. Chris Loosley (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to find citations for, and reintroduce content that you would like to see included. While the previous article may have read well as a research paper or analyst report on the subject, Wikipedia is not for original research and we are better to say nothing (and let people search elsewhere) than say something wrong (like that RIAs "are typically much more responsive"). -- samj _in^out 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

User:Lkcl just pinged me about taking another look at this article which he has since tagged as dubious etc. It seemed curious to me that someone would be so fervent about ensuring RIA also applies to Javascript frameworks, with language like "this MUST now be acknowledged in the page, otherwise, wikipedia is being utilised to spread false information. that's unacceptable", so it was no surprise for me to discover that Luke happens to be a/the lead developer of Pyjamas. Therefore I'd like to remind him of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy before further pushing what is effectively a fringe theory. Thanks. -- samj _in^out 11:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

sam, hi. no, it's not a fringe theory. no, i'm not interested in "pushing personal agendas". i'm here, at this page, to provide yet more evidence of the usage of the word "RIA" as associated with javascript (this time, yet another book, SBN13: 978-1-4302-2790-8). the amount of evidence that the term "RIA" is now used in connection with pure javascript applications, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ME, is overwhelming, and so it seems somewhat pointless to continue to claim that the only way in which a "rich internet application" can be achieved is "through a browser plugin". Lkcl (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Luke, please stop. You are clearly too close to this to be objective about it and obviously feel it is important that your project be on the RIA bandwagon (why I don't know - where I come from RIA is a dirty word). -- samj _in^out 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"... where I come from RIA is a dirty word". Isn't it possible then that your edits are not entirely objective. From a quick look at the history, it seems that you may be the editor responsible for (to my way of thinking) doing great damage to what was previously a useful article, and is now just a stub, basically just a list with very little organization or narrative flow. I have not done a thorough search of the history to see who changed what, but I don't see how anyone can defend the current page as ideal, considering the content that has been discarded over the last year. 75.40.19.216 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior to my first edit the article had multiple issues for over 6 months - it was largely unverifiable, contained a great deal of original research, read like an advertisement and required cleanup. What exists now is hardly a stub and everything is well referenced. Sure it's still not ideal (nobody ever said it was), but it's better than before and you're welcome to suggest/make edits to further improve it. -- samj _in^out 14:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Performance and Security

Both sections start "X can improve" which is somewhere between non-neutral and blatantly false - both security and performance of RIA platforms have been increasingly called into question. Not sure what we should do here but it's hard to talk about either without comparisons (presumably to native applications on one hand and web applications on the other)... and even then it's hard to make even qualitative statements. Thoughts? -- samj _in^out 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article above is more about Steve Jobs' questionable motives and possible anti-competitive practices than it is a genuine and unbiased critique of RIAs. With unhelpful and obviously false statements such as "They are lazy" (referring to the Adobe Flash team), any statements on Flash made by Jobs should be taken with a large dose of salt. The article quotes disputed statements such as "Flash would erode Apple iPad's battery life to 1.5 hours" which in my experience is not universally agreed upon (there is nothing inherently "CPU hogging" about Flash, actually one might argue that slow performing JavaScript hogs much more CPU than JIT-compiled apps running in the Flash VM do!) Going further, Flex's AMF protocol wins in performance over all XML-based alternatives. The only legitimate criticism of RIA performance is that an initial download of the application is required (there are mitigation techniques, of course), but there's a difference between load time and run-time performance. Performance isn't really a debatable topic, RIAs win if represented properly. Security may be a little more debatable, but I've yet to see a strong unbiased case made. Even if RIA security is a step backwards, it's still more secure than a "thick client" application since they're subject to browser security limitations. --Garoad (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Apache Pivot

Apache Pivot is Open Source, it is similar to Flex and Silverlight. It uses XML similar to Flex's MXML. It is based on Java Applets but runs in Java Swing as well. It has built in JavaScript (Rhino) and Groovy Scripting support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Pivot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.225.119 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pivot (http://pivot.apache.org/demos/) also runs on the desktop:

 public static void main(String[] args) {
       DesktopApplicationContext.main(StockTracker.class, args);
   }

I see nothing wrong with adding it in the "other" section. Wxidea (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I (it's already linked), just keep it factual and don't make it into an advertisement, no problem. Garoad (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article intro blabbs

The intro starts nice:

Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) are web applications that have many of the characteristics of desktop applications,

good so far

typically delivered either by way of a site-specific browser, via a browser plug-in, or independently via sandboxes or virtual machines.[1] Adobe Flash, Java and Microsoft Silverlight are currently the three top frameworks, with penetration rates around 95%, 80% and 45% respectively.[2].

this is nonsential name dropping at this stage. Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) are web applications, and then the typical usage is needed by the readers. How it is implemented is secondary, for a user or an implementor it doesn't matter if it is a VISUAL-COBOL-compiler that generates Parrot code that is emulated by a Java machine that JIT-compiles it into JavaScript. As a user or a s/w implementor I would like to know:

• what kind of desktop application? (desktop publisher/paint/spreadsheet/astronomy browser/data card index/database interface/tetris)
• what examples are there? (fckedit or what was the name again?)
• what PLs/MLs are those examples using for implementation?

The current immature shortcut from a short sketchy def directly to lists of TLA name dropping indicates a very vague and shallow understanding of what RIA actually entails.

I have to disagree that mentioning technologies used to implement RIAs is unessential "name dropping" since virtually every Wiki page provides similar information (examples) to illustrate the meaning of a term. Adding non-controversial examples (in other words obvious examples, i.e. not Gmail) of RIA software would be a good way to improve the article. But some of the above "what kind of desktop application" are too general to address since an RIA can do virtually anything. I'm confused that you seem to be saying "implementors don't care what RIAs are implemented with"--but of course they do, they're implementors. In any case the current list is accurate, and more accurate information is better than less. Garoad (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, recommended reading based on a shallow overviewing of the above discussions: WP:5P > ... > WP:OWN, specifically WP:OWN behaviors; then WP:5P > WP:CONS. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is an open question whether the typical reader on an article on RIAs is a layman user looking for what sort of apps run like this or a developer-type person who is looking for information on how they work. My company develops a RIA, and none of our customers get as far as the term RIA, though a very few might have heard of the Cloud, and they all (obviously) have heard of the service, and that is how they think of it - as well has by the functions it provides. In other words, our users will be looking up articles on its functions, not the RIA article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit - having said that, I would be happy if people used my application as an example of a RIA, though I doubt many WP editors would a priori know anything about it as it is a B->B service in a niche market. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should target either the "layman" or developers, ideally it'll include plenty of information for everyone to understand what an RIA is on either a basic or more in-depth (dev) level. Simply adding more information such as solid examples would probably improve things. Garoad (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The examples are good to explain RIA by example — many/most readers will already have had exposure to one or more of the frameworks listed so it should help them understand quickly what we're talking about. I think it's pretty clear what we mean when we talk about "desktop application" too, as distinct from a static web page, but if you want to spell out interactivity, etc. then go for your life. -- samj _in^out 02:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It's only a small point, but the word internet in the title of this article is being used as an adjective, not a noun. Although some argue (see Internet capitalization conventions) that the internet deserves a capital letter as a proper noun, like God and Michael but unlike sky or radio, but we avoid capitalising adjectives (WP:MOSCAPS). For the title here, I think we should have either Rich Internet Application as an expansion of the acronym RIA, or preferably Rich internet application as an important English phrase, but what we have at the moment is not the best, I believe. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Rich Internet application → Rich internet application – I agree that this is confusing, and given Wikipedia policy calls for lower case titles it's better to go in that direction (as is increasingly the case) rather than capitalising everything. -- samj _in^out 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Internet is a proper noun, and thus this is probably correct namespace for the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; Internet is still a proper noun. Powers ^T 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: We still capitalize proper adjectives, and the Internet is still a proper noun according to almost everybody. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Except the "significant number of publications [who] have switched to not capitalizing the noun "internet."", including The Economist, the Financial Times, The Times, the Guardian, the Observer, the Sydney Morning Herald, Wired News and the CNN. See also "radio" and "television", per this Wired article and this Wikipedia article. -- samj _in^out 00:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just went to CNN.com and searched for "internet". The first news article there uses "Internet". There is a good case to be made for it to be treated as a common noun and made lowercase, but this is still quite rare, and Wikipedia shouldn't be setting trends. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Internet" is not an adjective here. It is a noun adjunct. Besides, "internet" is different from "the Internet": See internetworking. Fleet Command (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: because it is "Internet" not "internet". —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source required: HTML5

Hi, people. Do I need to remind you that everything in Wikipedia needs source, especially the controversial one? Well, to say that HTML5 is a major RIA platform needs source; one that says so explicitly from the mouth of a technician, not as a journalists "this vs. that" fuss. This is especially true since the {{main article}} to which this article sends me says that HTML5 is still not yet officially out, it has bugs and not yet largely adopted.

I am afraid I must insist on a source. Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look for a source. I am not trying to get into platform politics; rather trying to bring some overall logical structure to these pages. This is further challenging because most of these platforms are not 1:1 competitors, but have different histories and different capabilities. Further, a problem with the pages (this existed before some edits I made) is they are too backward-looking in terms of desktop platforms, and there's not a good way for readers to know about future platforms on mobile. Wxidea (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, tech stuff is not always covered in major news, nor are textbooks up to date. I know blogs are not accepted as sources by many wikipedians. (I disagree with that). Let me know if sources like either of these are suitable to you?

• HTML5 and the future of Adobe Flash - by Ray Valdes - February 10, 2010 - http://blogs.gartner.com/ray_valdes/2010/02/10/html5-and-flash/
• Why HTML5 is the new Java - By Craig Raw - Jul 26th, 2011 - http://www.techcentral.co.za/why-html5-is-the-new-java/24835/
• 50 Ways to Leave Your Standard: Silverlight vs. HTML5 and JavaScript - Jonathan Goodyear - July 07, 2011 - http://www.devproconnections.com/article/silverlight-development/50-ways-leave-standard-silverlight-html5-javascript-139722

If I don't hear from you soon, I will add back the HTML5 links. -- but you are welcome to re-remove if you think these links are not suitable -- I won't consider that an edit war. As I mentioned, I'm just trying to bring some broader encyclopedic structure and classification.Wxidea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

I'm afraid I see a problem with some of these recent edits regarding HTML5 as an RIA "platform". This seems blatantly wrong to me as HTML5 is clearly not regarded as a "platform"; rather, it is a standard. There is a big difference here, and even the current "Computing platform" page on Wiki makes this apparent when you look at the list of "software framework (platform) examples": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_platform Here AIR (which integrates with Flash), Java, .NET are listed and Flash/Silverlight could easily be added to that list as platform examples. However adding HTML5 to that list makes little sense. In the case of HTML5 usage technically I would regard all the various browser sandbox implementations as the actual "platforms". The fact that these "platforms" are (supposed to be) guided based off the HTML5 standard doesn't make HTML5 a platform, so the article is technically incorrect now in categorizing it as one. Garoad (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Garoad, I totally agree that HTML5 is more of a standard than a "platform." The definition of platform itself is very vague. The problem is that if this page is going to be overrun by Flash and Silverlight, then it's only logical to include HTML5/JS and Java applets as well. It is true that if you want to make a web site that is highly interactive, and have it be usable by >50% of the public, the developer must build on one of these 4 technologies. The fact that "RIA" itself is jargon is another issue. --- and it's open for discussion whether mobile OSs should also be considered platforms. Wxidea (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. If this page is going to be overrun by Flash and Silverlight, I say so be it. You can cover other RIA platforms as well (such as Shockwave), but in the end, WP:DUE says Flash and Silverlight must receive the overwhelming coverage. Besides, it is wrong to mixup HTML5 with Javascript and CSS; they are separate standards. Fleet Command (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a misleading and overly-semantic statement. When people say HTML5 and typically mean HTML5 combined with CSS and JS. The <canvas> element in particular is quite useless without JS. Wxidea (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To tell the truth, it was I who first attempted to promote this point of view via this source but had to back down since my proposal did not gain consensus. No matter how many people commit this mistake, Wikipedia is not democracy. Reliable sources say that HTML5, CSS, Javascript and SVG are separate things. HTML5 is not yet out and the capacity of the entire fleet to produce RIA is not yet tested; hence, WP:NOTNEWS. The "HTML5 vs. Flash" puffery must stay out of Wikipedia.

However, since the capacity of Ajax is tested in notable currently-available web applications, feel free to include it.

And I say again: Do not forget to include current RIA platforms. ActiveX for instance, is a notable nominee. (But again, do not fall into the "people say" trap: ActiveX is not Internet Explorer. In fact, even if you don't browse Internet, there is more ActiveX controls in Microsoft Windows applications than there is vitamins in your food.) Fleet Command (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the term "HTML5" is more appropriate than alternatives like "Ajax" (which may not be HTML5 and usually isn't XML), though a reference to CSS and JS in the first instance (e.g. "HTML5 with CSS for layout and Javascript for interactivity") would be helpful in clarifying what exactly it is we're talking about. -- samj _in^out 01:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

These days I don't think you'll have trouble finding reliable HTML5 references either, particularly with the launch of Adobe Edge. -- samj _in^out 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Samj, "HTML5 with CSS for layout and Javascript for interactivity" is short and clean. I added it to the article, though the flow is a little off now. Wxidea (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've streamlined it somewhat too. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I owe you all an apology. I was a complete fool. There is no problem whatsoever about using HTML5 to mean HTML5+CSS+JavaScript+SVG. No, it does not have anything to do with these technologies being separate. (An issue that has previously deceived me.) It is English language. Metonymy, synecdoche and hyponymy are common features of English language and the term "HTML5" can be used to as a synecdoche to refer to all HTML5-era technologies, unless when context dictates otherwise. The user of this term does not even need to achieve any consensus: Everyone speaking English is automatically having consensus. I am very sorry. Fleet Command (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of great information in older versions of this article

In reading this discussions, I see that user samj gutted the article a while back. The changes appear driven by ideology: whether one of deletionism, or an anti RIA bias (which user samj acknowledges) is unclear. While Deletionist-prone editors are likely to remove any unsourced comment, even if it is conventional wisdom to another editor, take a look at older versions like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Internet_application&oldid=264251013 -- if you want ideas on how to restore a lot of interesting and useful content to this page. I don't have the time or energy to do it myself now. -- Wxidea (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that samj "gutted" the article and do not see a problem with his views to date given that the version of the article you quoted should have additional sources referenced. Certainly any "advantage/disadvantage" comparison has the potential to be very subjective, and even with strong sources it could easily bias the article if the authors miss key factors. I am not "anti-RIA" myself, and don't really understand why you'd suggest that samj is "anti-RIA"? Garoad (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rich_Internet_application/Archive_1 in "Conflict of Interest", Samj says: "where I come from RIA is a dirty word". My point is that it's not hard (though it is time consuming) to find copious reference on RIAs, and an editor with some spare time to improve the article can get ideas and/or draft text from the older, pre-gutted, versions that other editors already put a lot of time into. Wxidea (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and I'm sure most of us have our own dirty words. Given that I can't see any obvious hostility or bias against the RIA concept itself put forth by Samj, I think it's safe to assume good faith. I agree that AJAX (another buzzword which already has a clouded meaning) technologies should be distinguished from plugin or "VM-based" RIA technology, as the two are technically very different. Yet all player-based RIA technologies are very, very similar. Not to just be funny here, but if were playing "one of these things is not like the other" with Flash, Silverlight, Java, and AJAX, we all know what Big Bird is calling out as the impostor. But foremost, I don't see how this hurts either technology, and how taking a position that AJAX is/isn't "RIA" detracts from anything. It is what it is. Right? I think there should be a clear distinction. Regarding other deleted content (such as RIA "benefits" and so on), it's fine to restore that content if it's backed up with sources--some was a bit sketchy IIRC. Garoad (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say, though, that I don't agree with everything Samj has posted to date (one example being the link to Steve Jobs attacking Flash at the top of this page--it's painfully obvious Steve has some serious bias of his own and has put forth some rather ludicrous statements regarding these topics), so like I said above--addition or restoration of content is fine if it's backed with sources that can be trusted (there's no way Jobs is in this category). Garoad (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that User:Garoad already pointed User:Wxidea to WP:AGF because the accusations of "gutting", "ideology", "deletionism" and "bias" is hardly WP:CIVIL — nor is barking at other editors to reintroduce unverifiable, biased content because you "don't have the time or energy to do it [your]self now".

My point in calling out a potential conflict (almost two years ago no less) was to question why the editor was so keen to have a Javascript library associated with RIA — which is obviously still a controversial claim. "RIA" in the conventional/common sense of the term implies a plugin and all that entails — proprietary formats and licensing, platform compatibility problems, security issues, etc. and bundling native web applications in with RIA does little to enlighten our readers — rather causing confusion.

Assuming we were to accept that Javascript based web applications were RIA, and reintroduce old content to that effect, how many websites these days do not fall into that category (hint: very, very few) and what term do we use to describe "plugin-based rich internet applications"? -- samj _in^out 01:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay on Flash alternatives

I've removed this 660 word essay on Adobe Flash alternatives because it belongs in the Adobe Flash article and was starting to look like a WP:COATRACK. Leaving this link here in case anyone wants to merge the information. -- samj _in^out 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that you cut out virtually the whole article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Internet_application&diff=prev&oldid=443442744). The majority of things that are Flash alternatives are really RIA platform alternatives. Are you just planning to dump all this content into the past, or put the work into adapting it into someplace new? Wxidea (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also for publicly acknowledging that you "desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result". It's not my job to work to integrate content others want included when that content is not compliant with policy because it is off-topic, unverifiable, etc. — surely alternatives to Flash belong in the Flash article? -- samj _in^out 12:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution: reframe it historically

RIA is a dumb article in today's world. Virtually no new sites are not based on an RIA, and web apps are all rich. A look at the revision history of this article shows many generations, including how 90% of the article contents have been eliminated by user Samj. Assuming good faith, I think the problem that Samj and others have been dealing with is that RIA is fundamentally a meaningless and obsolete term, and when it does have meaning, that meaning is vague or inconsistent. It's the kind of word used by consultants and project managers; but no developer would say, "I want to install a RIA". Rather people build on the best platform for now and the near future. There was a time, e.g., in 2002, when RIA was a a much bigger differentiation from plain old HTML. I'd need to think about it some more, but I think this page would work much better presented as a concept of the past. It could be divided into a few eras. But I don't want to start making that change without asking Samj's views, as it's clear he feels strongly, and does not hesitate to delete large blocks of other editor's contributions. Wxidea (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RIA is a fine term, provided it is constrained to the use it was originally intended — by Macromedia (and now Adobe, who acquired them): plugin-based desktop-like applications on the Internet. It is still a valid term and it is still in use today to refer to Flash-based applications. If you expand it to include HTML then "virtually no new sites are not based on an RIA", as you observe, so we may as well just go ahead and link this article to web application. -- samj _in^out 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I don't think I entirely agree with you scoping RIA as narrowly as Macromedia, but I support refocusing this page exclusively on the historical use (e.g., as a precursor to the web as we know it now, when various plugins like flash where needed for any kinds of meaningful, realtime interactivity or interesting multimedia. And then clearly referring the reader to Web Applications. I think there does need to be a platform page (that might already exist) which lists the major web and now mobile platforms. I think any platform that every had at least 50% market penetration or over 10 million users should be valid. That would be the current (flash, html5, silverlight, java), plus the major mobile OSs, which are effectively platforms. Also "Web application" is to business-oriented right now; it could be expanded simply to not games and videos. Note how the term is less common now: http://www.google.com/trends?q=Rich+Internet+application Wxidea (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The term is still alive and well, in so far as it is used to refer to plugin-based applications — for example, a new UC course was just accounced on the subject: Overview of Rich Internet Applications with Flash, Java, and Silverlight. That said, the interest in the technology itself appears to have taken a nosedive in favour of native web applications and platforms (Android/iOS/etc).

I don't think the article needs to be "reframed" or "refocused" to take this trend into account, rather our energies should be focused on the current generation. -- samj _in^out 09:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

People on both sides, even the ones that pose arguments that smack of "rah rah go team!", seem to be framing this term entirely within the context of tight corner within flash. Shouldn't it simply go there? Why such vehement attempts to establish it as some sort of universal term? Is this a religious issue? As a software engineer forever, I've seen plenty of those in my time.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of the article?

I think the article does not respect wp policy to quote references outside the sentence.188.25.106.110 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but "Rich" <-----wazzitmean???

Sorry to say things glibly, but I cringe when I see terms show up that have no precise meaning. What does "Rich" mean anyway? Is it the modern day version of the meaningless term "robust" of the old days, or does it pin down to a specific notion that has a history other than Adobe's?Tgm1024 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. "rich" is a meaningless marketing adjective that Macromedia/Adobe abused to add an emotional response to what they were trying to sell. I personally have never heard the term used seriously by a developer in the past decade. I agree with above suggestions that this article be tuned in scope to be historical in nature with an emphasis on Flash and related products. 76.168.83.54 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "rich" is used to imply the use of enhanced features, for example: styles and formatting as opposed to "plain." The term is not an Adobe specific term; the use of "rich-text" is still in common usage against "plain-text" (eg: RTF files vs. TXT files). In context of RIA, and albeit relative, the richness implies enhanced features supporting the browser presentation and event handling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.126.39 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Who removed Curl ? ( Yes, Curl, not cURL ! )

JavaFX 2.2 for Java 8 may have 3D and RTF support ... but when did MIT Curl's RIA plugin get 3D ? Yes, the RTF widgets are newer. Then there is CAEDE.

So why was Curl removed ? Ignorance of the number of banks and audit firms worldwide running Curl RIA on audit and risk management laptops which run s/w from the tax division of Thomson Reuters, the largest vendor in the sector ?

JavaFX article has a SEE ALSO to the Curl programming language which was ALWAYS an RIA plugin and is NOT only used in Japan and Korea.

In the original RIA articles in the industry rags there were 3 contenders with 3 proprietary frameworks. Curl was one of those 3. At the time it was still an MIT spin-off in Cambridge, MA. Curl is now at SCSK in Tokyo. But Curl is also now as open source as JavaFX !

Or did the author of that destructive "edit" also believe that Prolog and Smalltalk are used nowhere in IT in English-speaking countries ?

Which MIT DARPA project did Curl come out of ? Oh, that's just IT history, I suppose. And as we know, history is not about the documents that bear on the facts of the matter.

A former lead Curl developer, Thomson Reuters [ TAX, audit, GRC etc. ]

Oh Smalltalk : JPM, Amex, Cargill, Progressive, Principal Group ... but some of that s/w work is done in Des Moines and Omaha, so not REALLY current IT even if still hiring and developing in those irrelevant cities.

And as to Thomson Reuters customer list ... that was many of top 100, not just top 200 and 500 corp's ... but will that yet emerge as documented facts ? As of 2013, has that changed ? Still 3 of the big 4 ?

www.curl.com www.curlap.com

G. Robert Shiplett 10:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RIA framework list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Internet_application_frameworks still lists Curl (programming language)

Is that Curl mention to be deleted as well ? Then we can delete Scheme, Haskell as irrelevant in real world IT from articles elsewhere on WP ... call it revisionist hostory or just "cleanup" ? Keep it simple and don't confuse us with the facts.

And yes, Curl has digital signing of code modules

www.curl.com www.curlap.com

G. Robert Shiplett 11:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RIA and async requests

Curl (programming language), i.e., curl9 or "version 8.0" has had async calls since WHICH version ?

Put that down in your "What is AJAX and why did we delete Curl ?" columns.

Of course if WP were built using JavaFX 2.1 ...

And yes, Curl applets do run on the desktop OR in the browser ...

Q : when did Curl begin emitting HTML+JavaScript ?

G. Robert Shiplett 11:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

traversal and the JavaFX scene graph

Did anyone actually look at the LIVE Curl (programming language) IDE docs to put in breakpoints and step through any code ?

Try a search on active traversal.

Did I say "live" code ? As in Seaside or LivelyKernel ? Oh you thought that was ONLY in Smalltalk. I see. And Self came from where? And LiveScript? And you are an RIA framework "expert". Uh-huh.

Was the transition to JavaFX 2.0 because there were no mission critical app's written in Jfx Script ? And that same year, how many mission critical app's were running as Curl RIA in Fortune 100 firms globally ?

And Seaside (software) is not RIA because ... Berne or Lille are not in California or NYC ? But Lausanne is where ? JIT-land?

Delete. So much easier than learn, investigate, enquire.

corp GUI contract developer since '92.

G. Robert Shiplett 12:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)