Talk:Web application/Archive 1

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm proposing merging the article Rich internet application as the term is a largely a buzz word with little meaning beyond an internet application. --neon white talk 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Web application" sems to be just a catchy name used by enterprises because "Rich internet application" is too long. The Rich internet application name, however, sources its existance to the W3C website. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Ooooooooooooops, see new comment below. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I tried to rewrite this article, since it's in pretty bad shape as it stands now, but I couldn't find many sources that specifically relate to RIAs. That shows that it's mainly used as a buzzword and nothing more. — ^Fatal Error 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about this. I've worked in this space since 2003. I came across the article shortly after it was first written. I was excited at the prospect of finally having a 'name' I could put to our work. The term has become synonymous with a particular style of web application experience. It does not define a particular technology. For example: AJAX, Ruby on Rails, once:radix (our technology), Flex, Silverlight, ET AL. Where it becomes a little obscure, from my perspective, is when Sun JavaFX Script becomes associated with the term. But then, maybe it is too early to call that one. It seems to me that it is too early to make a call where the RIA term will go but I expect it to be with us well into the future. Wikipedia, whether intentional or not, has become a major influence on the adoption of language definitions. If this article did not exist, the term would never have caught on. But it does exist and it has caught on. To remove the term now is like trying to turn back time. One thing Wikipedia is not: It's not the Tardis. I think the horse has bolted. So I recommend that the name be left as is. As for the state of the article, the problem is that there are so many similar but different technologies that fit into the space. I've read the article but find so much of it irrelevant to our particular implementation of RIA technology. I think it would be better to get an expert panel from the various interest groups to cut the article down to what is common to all RIAs and move solution specific material elsewhere.Once:technologies (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved my comment to section "notability of web application" below). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree as RIA guff is largely proprietary (with lip service to standards) and web application standards are actively being nailed down by WHATWG and the HTML 5 WG. I'd definitely rather the former did not 'infect' the latter. samj (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Samj, where did you read that web applications must use web standards? I don't see anything in the article. Web applications can be written with anything, not just open standards (Flash and Java come to mind). Basically, any application that is accessed by a browser is a web application, regardless of the technologies it uses. The rich Internet application article has not asserted its notability; I see very few reliable sources that use that term. It's just a buzzword used by web developers, no more. — ^Fatal Error 00:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree as RIA does not restrict itself to the area of the Internet known as the Web. A Web application is delivered or somehow depends on HTTP. An Internet application has no such dependency. 80g (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]