Talk:Microsoft Silverlight/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Neutrality

i made a few changes to improve the NPOV of this article.

  1. The claim that flash is "highly popular" is not cited
  2. The term dual-platform draws of that it is available for only two platforms. In my opinion however it should be "cross platform" as its available for more that one platform. the fact that linux currently is not one of them is not relevant.
    • The fact that it supports only two platforms is a fact, not a point of view. Dual-platform is a more accurate description than 'cross-platform', which could be any number from 2 up. Whether linux is relevant is an opinion, but Silverlight's lack of support for it is a fact. Therefore I'm putting 'dual platform' back. And please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Thank you. --Harumphy 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Something that is dual platform IS crossplatform. This is a NPOV issue because the people saying it should be cross platform do so because they feel that anything that does not support linux is not cross platform. we do not call someging supporting three platforms triple platform even thogh that is more accurate. as you say, cross platform can be any number from two and up. silverlight fulfill this requirement. 213.64.235.239 10:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Dual-platform is a subset of cross-platform, sure. Neither term is inaccurate. However, dual-platform is the more precise and therefore the more informative of the two, and that is why the term should stay. The web is a heteregenous system, with many 'platforms', and developers need to know exactly what is supported and what isn't, despite vendors choosing the most flattering terms they can get away with. Wikipedia isn't here to pull the wool over readers' eyes. Harumphy 11:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Then all software that is currently called "cross-platform" has to be renamed to indicate the exact number of platforms it supports! that is just plain silly. no one is pulling anything over anyones eyes, the platforms that are supportet are clearly listed in the article. again as you yourself say, the web is a system with many 'platforms'. this means that neither dual nor cross platform is sufficient to describe were the software can be run. if one considers OS:s platforms, silverlight is dual platform, if one considers browsers platforms its either triple or quadruple platform depending if you differenciate between firefox on windows and mac. due to this ambiguity, the more general "cross-platform" should be used. 213.64.235.239 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with this point of view. The word "platform" is ambiguously defined. If you take OS as the platform, its dual platformed. If browser is the platform, its tri or quad platformed (if Mac/FF and Win/FF are considered different) and soon to be five (when Opera joins the party). If you delve into technicalities, its dual platform - only one per-OS. (Why is the OS series a platform - XP, Vista and OS X are different, so you have three platforms). Different plug-ins expose the same runtime to different browser. What about when Windows Mobile is supported? One more OS? Or change the definition of platform to be the form-factor? So, I strongly think, we should not go into the numbers game (as that depends on point of view) and stick with the generic "cross-platform". --soum (0_o) 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
              • If the term platform is ambigious, then cross-platform must be ambigious too. Maybe it needs a rewrite that avoids the terms dual-platform and cross-platform, and instead states exactly what the thing does. There's too much detail in the intro anyway; it's hard to read. --Harumphy 15:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
                • How about "... proprietary runtime for in-browser hosting of Rich Internet Applications, currently supported on IE and FF on Windows and Safari and FF on Mac". Or leaving the support status out of this sentence, and detailing platform support (IE 6/7 and FF1.5/2 on Windows XP/Vista, FF1.5/2 and Safari(?) on Mac OS 1.4 Intel/PPC with Opera and Windows 2000 support coming soon + ref) on the following line. As for rewrite, one is needed. The current version mixes info from 1.0 and 1.1 releases haphazardly. I will be tackling the reqrite later tonight (its 2130 now, local time). --soum (0_o) 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
                • i agree that the term platform is ambigious, then cross-platform must be ambigious too, this is why the more general "cross-platform" (if anything) should be used. the wording above is however the most clear i think. 83.177.106.33 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The common usage of "cross platform" today means Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what it's generally understood to mean unless someone says otherwise. This is the reality of the current vernacular. Wikipedia should not be so arrogant as to attempt to redefine it. 216.150.131.207 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I disagree. i whould like to see any sort of reference that backs your statement that it is "generally" understood that "cross platform" referes to the three os families you say.. if that is true then all linux only software should be considered "single platform" as it only supports "linux". i dont think many linux users whould agree that their software is "single platform" 83.177.106.33 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

3. the word "only" in the sentence "..only availabe on windows and mac" is not neutral Also added a few citations from the msdn forums, claming that opera plgins and other OS:es are still under concideration

Controversial Advertising

I removed the section because:

  1. it was fake, and MS wasn't involved.
  2. I do not see reliable sources backing it.
  3. hardly adds encyclopedic value to the article. --soum (0_o) 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this differ from Macromedia/Adobe Flash?

Worcflet 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) It's not fake do research before making such claimes.

Fake as in it was not an official MS ad. --soum (0_o) 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation / references style

The references aren't rendering properly, so I'm tidying them up. Please do not switch to citation templates without first obtaining agreement of other editors, as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. TIA. --Harumphy 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I tested in IE 7.0, FF 2.0/3.0 nightlies, Opera 9.20 - in none the templates are appearing messed up. Only those which support two-column rendering, renders in two cols, other than that, it is identical to the <references/> display. So, since it is not messing up the formatting in unsupporting browsers, why should supported browsers be prevented from rendering the two-column display to save place?
This screenshot shows the problem. This is on Firefox 2 on Ubuntu Feisty. __Harumphy 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(fair use image removed from talk page).

I figured that out when I saw it in a lower resoultion screen than what I normally use. I attempted a fix. Please check it now. --soum (0_o) 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes that fixed it. Good. --Harumphy 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Plus, the consensus referred is about the format of presenting the reference notes, not which tag is used to render them. --soum (0_o) 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being thick, but I don't understand that. --Harumphy 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary?

What's the word proprietary doing there? Hardly neutral to keep bringing out every word in the book you can find that is a fact, but sounds negative. There's a "Licensing"-column in the info-box. Andreas Brekken 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's a fact, it's a fact. Only PR flacks have a problem with them. Are you suggesting that we should only include positive-sounding facts? Harumphy 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Harumphy, you are being a troll. As I said the fact that it's proprietary should be mentioned in the article, but at the appropriete place. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not just to state as many facts as possible, but to bring those facts to someone who doesn't know about the subject, in a structured, and nice to read manner. Most of the people that want to know what Silverlight is are interested in what it does, before they want to know about the license. If they are looking for the license, they will also know where to look, ie. in the fact box at the right. This has nothing to do with showing or hiding information, it's just how you write an article. Putting it in the first line is like starting the article about milk with the average pricing of a carton if it.
And be honest with yourself. You are not writing it there because you trying to make the article more informative, you are writing it there because you have some aversion against propriatery software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.28.165 (talk • contribs)
Please sign you comments with four tildes. Otherwise it's impossible to tell who said what and when.
The issue is about much more than the license. Although I prefer not to use proprietary software myself, I've no objection to others using it. However, I think it's in the public interest for people to be aware that that's what it is and that it can come at a price to others as well as themselves if results in content being made available via a file format or protocol that is dependent on a proprietary product. That damages the web; that much has been readily apparent since Netscape unilaterally added its own tags to HTML 2.0 over a decade ago. This is why the word 'proprietary' is important when discussing web stuff; those who disagree or don't care can always ignore it. I'm putting it back. --Harumphy
Harumphy, there is an {{unsigned}} as well. :)
I am not going into this content dispute. I am actually neutral on this issue (I wrote it in the first place!) But he has a point - that it is proprietary is (or can be) prominently mentioned in the infobox. So this does cause a redundancy. --soum talk 03:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox, it just says "License: EULA" which is vague and doesn't make the essential point. I looked at the Infobox_Software template but it doesn't appear to offer a solution. What exactly do either of you have in mind? --Harumphy 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addition (and modification) of two fields:
Source type: Closed source with open source components
License: Proprietary MS-EULA.
--soum talk 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is Silverlight proprietary? Certainly. Is Flash proprietary? Of course it is. But the word "proprietary" doesn't appear anywhere in the article on Flash. The use of proprietary in the first sentence of the Silverlight article is purely due to it being a Microsoft product. The intent is to place Silverlight in a negative light simply because it comes from Microsoft. Doesn't sound very NPOV to me.Jacksheriff 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Pointing to other articles is generally not considered a good argument, each edit should be justified on its own merits. That said, because Silverlight is indeed a proprietary implementation (MS or not), I do not see any PoV in stating that. By your judgement, no software article should mention anything of their source and licensing model, isn't it? However, because it is already mentioned in the inforbox, that makes it redundant. I am not very particular about it, but am in favor of reducing redundancy, so am endorsing the removal. However, I am undoing your insertion that it is a plug-in, not a runtime. It is technically incorrect. It is a runtime, that can be embedded into browsers via plug-ins, and this facet is explained clearly. --soum talk 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The web is a heterogenous network built on open, patent-unencumbered, W3C standards. Anything that detracts from that, such as proprietary add-ons, may have implications for interoperability. That is why the word 'proprietary' is important here. If you want to add it to the Flash article, go ahead. If you think that 'proprietary' places Silverlight in a negative light, perhaps you should ask yourself why. --Harumphy 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On the topic of Flash lacking the info that it's a proprietary technology, that seems like a big omission of that article. The problem here seem to me to be more about Flash lacking the word, than this one having it. Personally, I don't see the "issue" or even the negativity about that word. It's a platform that someone designed and owns. There's nothing inherently evil about that. — Northgrove 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Market reaction

I have summarized all that I could remember of having read about developer reaction about Silverlight over the last few days, both positive and negative. Could not find a few references, please help. Also, I tried to keep it as neutral as I could. If I have missed someting, either let me know, or better, be bold and fix it. --soum (0_o) 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with calling the section criticism, but constructuve praises should not be moved out of the section saying the rest of the article is for it. No, the rest of the article is not for applause, they are for factually stating what Silverlight is, not how people think it is better or worse than other solutions. And by definition, criticism is NOT bashing, it is about constructive and positive praises as well. A criticism stems only from peoples perception, which is how the market receives it (in other words, market reception). Since perception can be positive or negative, a section about it must not censor positive experiences. I am open to having a discussion about it. --soum (0_o) 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have "no problems with calling the section criticism", why do you keep changing it to "market reaction"? If you have enough information about various Market Reaction news, then you should start a section for that. Most other controversial products have a Criticism section in Wikipedia. It's just standard. A heading that says "criticism" allows readers to quickly navigate down to see what the criticism is. You are burying it by added "market reaction" stuff, making it harder to read the points of criticism. The market reaction things you've stated are only your opinion, as it is not referenced. As I said, if you have enough info, start a Market reaction section. Don't try buying the Criticism section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.46.202 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I was never trying to overturn your edits. My concern is just that since the article does not elsewhere list any positive reaction to Silverlight, only including negative reactions will be a violation of NPOV. And since criticizing is also a part of the response (or reaction, if you may) from the target audience, and because the word "Criticism" carries a totally negative connotation, I was changing to a more neutral tone. But frankly, I don't care about the name.
As for the content, no they are not my opinion. They are summarized versions of what user and developers have opined on their blogs, which I have happened to come across sometimes in the last few days. Yeah the list is not yet comprehensive, nor are references added. But I am quite a bit busy for the next two days and wont have time to look up proper references and add. Just a google search and see that is the general feeling. True, the word lauded may be a bit too strong, but that developers are praising use-the-language-of-your-choice (almost) for developing is a fact. Also, your criticisms are not comprehensive as well. There are more criticisms as well:
  • Lack of a comprehensive library of UI widgets.
  • Lack of two-way databinding on UI widgets.
Add them if you feel like, it wont take more than 10/15 minutes to find references. I will work on these sections once my presentations are over. In the meantime, if you may remove them or tone them down. But if it only paints the criticism picture, I am gonna slap a POV-check tag on the article. --soum (0_o) 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There was not any need to get this aggressive. The message I left on your talk page was a friendly gesture asking you to review my edits and offer your opinion, NOT a way to say "Look, I reverted your edits and proclaim my supremacy <add the most evil of laughs here>". --soum (0_o) 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, Soum. I didn't intend to sound aggressive. Sorry if it came out that way. I will look at some other wiki articles about controversial products and see how they are handled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.46.202 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Criticism section

It has too many unreferenced opinions. The unreferenced ones should be removed.

Also, we want to see features, and know why people are critical of them. To pepper it with phrases like "it has been lauded by developers" means nothing in this section. I just want to see a brief list of the controversial features and a brief reason why people are critical of them. This is how Wikipedia treats other products. Too much fluff will bury the important points.

If we try to soften it or make it sound positive, we may as well read the Microsoft product pages instead of Wikipedia. 203.158.46.202 22:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

we should try and make it reflect the truth. if the truth is that there are alot of positive aspects, then the page should reflect this. we should not try and sound critical just to kiss up to the anti ms crowd(or the other way around). features should be listed and pros and cons to those features should be listed as well.. 83.177.106.33 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats my point. We should not bash just for the heck of it. We should present both sides, and not censor any aspect. Hang on, I am gonna work on it tonight. --soum (0_o) 12:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't just about features. It's also about the attitude to web standards. The web is a heterogenous network based on documented, patent-unencumbered open standards under the vendor-neutral aegis of W3C. A number of proprietary standards have been piled on top over the years - e.g. Real and Flash. They require browser plugins that are under the control of a single vendor. The lack of competition means that these plugins often suck. Now we have Silverlight to add to the list of single-vendor plugin crap that will probably only half-work. This is something that many people regard with profound dismay. The article should reflect that, whereas at the moment it looks just at Silverlight itself and not the monumental spanner that MS is throwing in the works. --Harumphy 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is something that many people regard with profound dismay, that criterion is not enough, it has to be backed up by reliable sources. And it has to be neutral as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soumyasch (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Naturally. That goes without saying. --Harumphy 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I like to see both sides, but I like to keep them separate. "The For" and "The Against". It's not that Silverlights wonderful features shouldn't be highlighted. It's just that there should be a separate Criticism section that just lists the criticism. That's how other products are handled in Wikipedia, so it's not Microsoft-bashing.
"However, the fact that any language targeting the .NET Framework, including the newer IronPython and IronRuby dynamic languages, can be used to write Silverlight applications, is appealing to web developers. [7]" This isn't criticism, so what's it doing in the Criticism section? Surely people aren't trying to fill the Criticism section with "positive features" too? What I'd like to see is a referenced sdiscussion of whether any of the benefits of those languages (e.g. use of closures, Rails etc) can be leveraged when writing a Silverlight app. Probably not, I suspect, but where's the reference? --Nigelj 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to see the section above this. An editor attempted to change the section to market reaction but this was apparently reversed Nil Einne 13:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that the criticism should be reference points, that quote more "mainstream" press other then blog posts? In reality this isn't a facts based approach but more of an opinion based discussion. I'm all for public discussion but not so much in places such as Wikipedia. There needs to be higher standard and whether your for or against Microsoft, this should be a valid resource for both camps - along with those in the middle. -- Mossyblog 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Links

You should add links to this article from:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilverLight en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SilverLight

A lot of people reference to this as SilverLight, eventhough we can clearly read the official logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.77 (talk • contribs)

Done --soum (0_o) 10:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms again

The section is still full of non-facts. It's as if it's just there because there's a tradition of having a criticisms section on all articles involving Microsoft.

Or just that they deserve it because they have dreadful products and even worse ethics. This is, after all, a serial monopolist with criminal convictions for offences against competition law on both sides of the Atlantic we're talking about.--Harumphy 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If that is your reason for adding criticism section, regardless of whether they deserve it or not, you better refrain from editing MS related articles. This mindset might gonna end up looking gross. (No this is not a warning or anything, I am just pointing out that if in future you are engaged in some content dispute that requires mediation, such quotes are goona be held against you as having a prejudice). --soum (0_o) 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite open about my prejudice. I absolutely loathe Microsoft. It's been No. 1 in my personal shitlist for over a decade. That's what motivates me to try to counter the thinly-disguised marketing fluff put into this article by the army of happy Microsoft bunnies in here. I am trying to add balance to what I see as an unduly uncritical article that reads like an MS handout. Of course I have to do this with facts supported by sources that meet all the WP requirements, just as the fanboys do ... or rather don't, as many of the sources cited are from MS web sites and far from independent or objective--Harumphy 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Everybody has his/her own preferences. Thats not my point. Your response "Or just that they deserve it because they have dreadful products and even worse ethics" to "It's as if it's just there because there's a tradition of having a criticisms section on all articles involving Microsoft" suggests you want a criticism section because Microsoft deserves it, regardless of whether the subject of the article deserves it or not. It is this attitude of judging something on its genealogy, not on its own merits and demerits, is what is of concern here, not your choices and preferences. --soum (0_o) 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

XAML and SVG have totally different scope; claiming that XAML is a proprietary format that competes with SVG is wrong. While SVG was designed primarily to define vector graphics and animations, XAML was designed to define vector graphics, animations, XPS documents, UI elements, application resources and workflows, all while being a first-class member of the CLR languages: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752059.aspx

So XAML does compete with SVG then. It may do other things too, but that doesn't change the fact. --Harumphy 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, SVG is not a competitor to XAML per se. XAML encompasses a scope much larger than the focus of SVG; vector graphics is only one aspect of XAML. As such, the criticism can only be limited to, as it is already in this article, that the vector graphics portion of XAML does not use SVG but rather a own flavor of XML dialect. Though there can be counterarguments lobbying against such a Frankenstein language, but thats not my point here. --soum (0_o) 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words XAML competes with a superset of SVG. The subset of XAML that competes with SVG could presumably have been implemented as SVG rather than MS going it alone. I think that is the gist of the criticism that was made. Whether that criticism is valid is, as always, debatable and not for us as WP authors to determine, but the article should point out that such a criticism has been made.--Harumphy 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Calling it a superset is not totally correct in this respect. Vector graphics is only a small part of what XAML targets, and not even the most visible aspect. As such, making vector graphics the focal point of judgment is what I am against. Sure, it is a valid point of criticism. I am not saying censor it out. I am just against making that the most visible criticism. Whatever is in the article, seems enough to me.
This is on the lines of the what OOXML has been criticized for - that it does not leverage open specs for certain portions when an established standard is already there to solve at least that part of the problem (VML in place of SVG, which is quite similar to the problem here). We should look at how that is handled.
There is one problem with criticism section in general - opinions of every other blogger tends to get included. We need to rationalize it to keep only the most prominent ones. --soum (0_o) 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As for being a first class member of CLR languaes, no, XAML is not so. XAML is another language that can markup the presentation components of CLR (specifically, WPF and its subsets). No language has direct support for it (not yet). The support is solely via the IL. --soum (0_o) 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

VC-1 can be implemented by Mono because the Novell-Microsoft agreement says that Microsoft will not enforce patents against individual developers, and that Microsoft and Novell customers will have patents covered for each other: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx

That doesn't solve the problem at all. There's a lot more to Linux than Novell and 'individual developers'. I note that the two sources you cite here are both Microsoft ones. Hardly a reliable source.--Harumphy 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would leave that to ffmpeg, mono foundation, and the VC-1 standards and licensing authorities to sort out. --soum (0_o) 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a copout. Saying that somebody should solve a problem, which might be impossible to solve, does not alter the fact that the problem exists.--Harumphy 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I just said I am not gonna theoretize on their behalf. I included ffmpeg because they have a WMV3 decoder, and they are not having their asses sued off. --soum (0_o) 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wiki articles so I'll not touch the article; please do this for me. 70.68.197.145 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) rei

Please do not insert responses to comments in between others comments. It makes it very hard to follow the discussions. Please respond below. (I know I also did the same, but it was already in such a mess, untangling was going to be tough)! --soum (0_o) 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Noted, but I've followed suit on this occasion for the same reason as yourself.--Harumphy 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


So my suspicion is confirmed; this is the mindset that people carry when they edit Microsoft related articles on Wikipedia. There are fundamentalists who strive for objectivity and humbleness in every matter excluding Microsoft, against which anything is justified. It's really not that surprising given Wikipedia is run primarily by the Free Software movement, which sees Microsoft as both a business rival and ideological antagonist. If Wikipedia's editors as a single entity has any particular conflict of interest, it's in software politics.

Harumphy, whether you like the Microsoft-Novell agreement or not, my citations are from the agreement conditions, and Microsoft is legally accountable for them. I trust that you would understand the matter quite well being that you seem to have a strong opinion about it; arguing still that Microsoft is not a credible source on the particular matter is nothing short of denial.

Now, other than that, you haven't explained why the VC-1 problem isn't solved, nor what the "whole lot more" is. As soum pointed out, groups like ffmpeg are free to implement VC-1 support. Even if Mono can't do it, it wouldn't be the first time Linux users would be required to download external dependencies for software. This is a non-issue.

Soum said most of what I wanted to say, but to summarize, here are the changes that I propose and the reasons for them:

-Drop the paragraph about SVG. XAML happens to be able to define vector graphics, but while XAML is interactive, SVG isn't, so thus they serve two totally different purposes. SVG is both semantically and intrinsically incompatible with XAML, so quit whining about XAML not incorporating SVG. Be technical here.

-Drop the line regarding VC-1 support. Until Silverlight 1.0 for Mono doesn't ship without VC-1, it's not criticism but rather speculation. 70.68.197.145 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) rei

I'm not sure quite how you managed to deduce the first paragraph of your comment from what I said, but no matter. The reality is that free software just wants to survive in a hererogenous network based on open standards to ensure interoperability with everyone else; while Microsoft has a 90% share of desktops and is leveraging this to displace open standards in an attempt to kill free software. This strategy was outlined by a MS staffer years ago in the first of the Halloween documents.
The Microsoft-Novell agreement is completely irrelevant, because (1) Microsoft owns just two of the 125 patents in the VC-1 licensing pool, and is not in a position to license the other 123 to Novell, Linux or anyone else; and (2) Novell is not Linux. It is one of hundreds of companies that work in whole or in part in the Linux arena. None of the others benefit in any way from the agreement. On the contrary, the agreement is generally being interpreted by the Linux community as a threat.
Ffmpeg stuff is legally dodgy in the USA because that jurisdiction has software patents.

SVG/XAML: AIUI the gist of the criticism from the sources cited is that (1) Microsoft has chosen to implement SVG-type functionality within XAML/Silverlight rather than as generic SVG within Internet Explorer. (IE is the only major browser that lacks SVG. This has rendered a useful W3C open standard largely unusable.) (2) XAML is itself a standards-buster, because it mimics W3C stuff (e.g. bits of CSS2) in an incompatible way. --Harumphy 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Lack of SVG support in IE has nothing to do with Silverlight. The only relation Silverlight has in with a browser that a browser is the host of Silverlight. Silverlight comes with its own object model separate from the browser. In fact, use a browser supporting SVG and CSS and can use them from withing the DOM integration APIs of Silverlight.
And saying XAML mimics W3C standards is not true. The standards together dont add up to full XAML feature set. Plus many are semantically incompatible. --soum talk 14:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood what I meant by "mimics". Anyway, I think we're getting bogged down in detail. As WP authors, all we need to do is summarise any criticisms that have been made, providing there are sources that meet WP's standards for citation. The criticisms that have been made and reported, regardless of anyone's opinion of their validity, relate to (1) Web standards and (2) Linux compatibility. --Harumphy 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms secn break

Yeah the VC1 part is particularly problemmatic. Its speculation and opinionating. Plus a missing feature in a third party implementation (which is NOT silverlight), how is that a criticism of Silverlight? --soum (0_o) 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And yes, a legally binding document from any commercial entity is definitely a reliable source. When you are interpreting parts of it, it may not be the best ref, but when stating facts from it, it definitely is. --soum (0_o) 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this paragraph needs improving. The first sentence is OK. The problem came when the second sentence was added. This Mono thing, apart from the VC-1 problem, is vaporware. (AIUI WP policy is to avoid writing about vaporware.) I added the third sentence in response to the second. I suggest we restore this paragraph to just its first sentence. --Harumphy 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the second line is also fine. Silverlight Mono is not the subject of that line, the intention of creating an open source equivalent is. That shows the interest in SL outside MS. This fact is in fact important to SL's market acceptance (as I always say, criticism is not bashing, it includes constructive criticism as well). It doesnt also claim that it is coming, or any such thing definitively. So, this line doesnt exactly talk about vaporware. However, when we start theoretizing on what feature list it will sport, that IS talking about vaporware, and should be removed.
However the context it is presented it is somewhat inappropriate. It should be stated somewhere else. Maybe where platform support is talked about?
Also this criticism secn needs a full rewrite, (almost) all paragraphs are just one liners. Thats not exactly a good writing style. --soum (0_o) 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Have I got this right? Although WP policy is to avoid mentioning vaporware, you think we should mention this Mono thing on the grounds that it hasn't even reached vaporware status yet? That's pretty cute. Besides, this is a *criticism* section, and the Mono thing doesn't alter the fact that Microsoft's own Silverlight implementation lacks Linux compatibility. It's a weasely distraction from that essential point with a barely-relevant, speculative, not-quite-vaporware-yet detail on the Mono guy's wishlist.--Harumphy 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Vaporware or not, it has gotten some significant press exposure, which makes it notable enough for mentioning. WP consensus (see relevant wikiproject discussions) is generally to avoid speculation regarding vaporware. If there is something that has gotten quite a significant exposure and can be reliably sourced, we report it (thats the rationale for inclusion of failed software initiatives, as well as for software that hasnt yet had a public release, both from MS and other developers). But as I already said, this probably is not the best place for it. Plus it is not totally vaporware, DLR is already running on Mono.
On other thoughts, whenever someone mentions something that is not available on one platform, dont people rush in to suggest alternatives? --soum talk 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think its time speculations regarding Mono SL support of VC1 be removed, since all of us are in agreement here. --soum talk 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it. I've also added a couple of new sources that add a bit to the unfolding story. --Harumphy 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Check this for Mono's plans on how it wants to deal with VC-1. And I am soon gonna update the article with Silverlight's security model. --soum talk 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Couple more things: I think the "Other Implementations" section should be moved up, maybe, considering I usually see the Criticisms sections at the bottom. The "Lack of Linux support" paragraph nearly contradicts the Other Implementations section. Perhaps it would make more sense to change that line to "Lack of immediate Linux support by Microsoft".

Also, again, there's nothing subjective about the fact that XAML is not related to SVG. I don't know what WP's usual policy is regarding source of content, but just quoting every blogger's negative comments doesn't really seem like a good way to improve overall content quality. Let's not stop striving for accuracy just because we're "bogged down in details". The devil is always in the details, so let's get the details right, shall we? Which brings me back to my second point: either write a rebuttal to the XAML-SVG criticism explaining why this is false, or take that section down, because it's simply incorrect. The former would be preferrable as it would inform readers that there is this misconception that XAML is somehow out to get SVG. If anything, lack of SVG support is a standards problem in IE, not in Silverlight. 70.68.197.145 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) rei

Moving the Other implementations section is a good idea. But, even though I named it, I am not too fond of the name. Any better idea?

And lack of Linux support is a criticism of Microsoft's runtime, not content authored for Silverlight. Moonlight aims to enable Linux support for Silverlight applications, not Silverlight.
And there should should be something for XAML and SVG/CSS combo. But what are the best words to state it? --soum talk 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


How about we just call the section Mono Moonlight or Moonlight? There might be a full Wiki article on Moonlight eventually, so it'd be a good idea to introduce it semi-in-depth here.

Just as a note for ourselves (not for the article), I remember in an old interview, probably on Channel9, someone from the then WPF/e team said that they don't intend to do Linux themselves because they expect a more *nix-experienced third party will pick it up. Of course that doesn't make any difference to the fact that there is no Silverlight support by Microsoft, but it's a decent justification.

As for SVG/CSS, I'm not too sure. A lot of the functionality overlaps but it's really apples to oranges so explaining their differences would entail explaining a lot. We'll have to mull that one over. 70.68.197.145 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) rei

Criticisms secn break 2

I have renamed it Moonlight. Explaining how XAML and SVG are different will be very daunting. I think the best way to do this would be to find an article which explains the differences and refuting the claim in the article by saying that they are incompatible and referring users to the article to read it themselves. --soum talk 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On other thoughts, Silverlight has chosen to use XAML. What XAML uses to markup vector graphics, how is that a concern of Silverlight. That XAML does not use SVG is at best a criticism of XAML, not the parsers that parse XAML (neither WPF nor XAML). This is the same as criticizing MS Office as OOXML (the file format it uses) uses DrawingML and VML for vector graphics instead of SVG. (Sure enough, the OOXML article lists the criticism, not Office article). Now that there are third party implementations of Silverlight, the same criticism has to apply to them also isnt they. Plus anybody can write an SVG parser in Silverlight and use Silverlight DOM calls to render SVG content. Also since both SVG and XAML are XML languages, just a XSLT transform is what is required to transform SVG to XAML. Its a no brainer, it should be removed. --soum talk 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not for us as WP authors to analyse or pass judgement on criticisms, but merely to report them. However the wording could be expanded to better reflect the criticism actually made by the Ars Technica piece cited. To remove the criticism would be POV.--Harumphy 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is not for us to pass judgment on anything. But we do have precedent of not including comments, even by notable critics, when they are wrong. Including invalid criticism without a clarification would be PoV as well. As I already said, not using SVG is a criticism of XAML, not applications that use XAML. As such, the criticism should be there, not here. And as rei pointed out, there are many references which does show that comparing XAML and SVG is like comparing apples and oranges. If it is indeed here, those references should also be brought into consideration. Yeah, the means for going around lack of SVG support was my own idea, but hey, I was not going to write that into the article! I would try contact editors of OOXML and XAML to bring another persepctive to this, anything that we might be missing. --soum talk 08:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Plus a one-off criticism does not reflect the general view of people. --soum talk 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You are replacing the Ars Technica criticism with an Aunt Sally of your own, in order to declare in invalid. The criticism is that MS chose to implement proprietary standards in Silverlight rather than open ones. That criticism was made in response to the Silverlight launch, and that the feature sets are not an exact match does not invalidate the criticism. In some places where MS could have used open standards in Silverlight, it chose proprietary ones instead. If you are some MS PR flack hell bent on turning the thing into an handout you'll probably get your way eventually, at which point the article will be nominated for AfD.--Harumphy 11:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I havent replaced anything, I havent touched the article yet. I never said the criticism that proprietary technologies are used in place of already available open standards was invalid. I was against the specific instance of XAML and SVG/CSS, cause what has been said is not totally correct. And you know what, you do not seem to be assuming good faith. I am no way associated with MS. I only try to keep things factually correct, not litter articles with opinions of every other person who speaks because he has a mouth. I was only trying to get this to a quick resolution. Getting third party opinion is a perfectly valid procedure, suggested by DR itself. You know what, go ahead and nominate this article for deletion. See you there. If you dont, I will. --soum talk 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms secn break 3

I have doubted your good faith because you seem to be using desperately tortured logic to remove the only remaining criticism in the article. That is exactly the behaviour one would expect from a PR flack.

Let's look at what the relevant part of the Ars Technica criticism actually said: "The biggest failing of Silverlight resides in the fact that it doesn't leverage existing standards. Rather than using the W3C's SVG standard for vector graphics, Microsoft started from scratch and created its own XML-based vector graphics subset for XAML that is structurally similar to SVG. The SVG standard is widely used and supported by a multitude of applications and development technologies. By building a completely independent XML-based language for vector graphics, Microsoft limits the extent to which XAML developers can use or adapt existing third-party tools and technologies that are designed to work with SVG.

"Although Microsoft's commitment to using XML is commendable, the company's perpetual unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to build on existing standards is deeply detrimental to users and developers. Internet Explorer 7 is still the only major web browser that has no native support for SVG. By neglecting to use the SVG standard in Silverlight and XAML in favor of a limited and incompatible facsimile, Microsoft has once again needlessly ignored what could have been an opportunity to empower developers and help Internet Explorer catch up with browsers that are more functional and standards-compliant."

This is credible commentary from a reputable source, IMHO. --Harumphy 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I already said, I am not against the essence of "The biggest failing of Silverlight resides in the fact that it doesn't leverage existing standards". But it should be backed up by facts and not incorrect opinions. From the quotes that you have highlighted, "Rather than using the W3C's SVG standard for vector graphics, Microsoft started from scratch and created its own XML-based vector graphics subset for XAML that is structurally similar to SVG" is a criticism of XAML not Microsoft Silverlight, as Silverlight does not include a vector graphics parser of its own; it inherits whatever is in XAML. "Although Microsoft's commitment to using XML is commendable, the company's perpetual unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to build on existing standards is deeply detrimental to users and developers. Internet Explorer 7 is still the only major web browser that has no native support for SVG. By neglecting to use the SVG standard in Silverlight and XAML in favor of a limited and incompatible facsimile, Microsoft has once again needlessly ignored what could have been an opportunity to empower developers and help Internet Explorer catch up with browsers that are more functional and standards-compliant" is a criticism of Microsoft Corporation, not Microsoft Silverlight. Thats why I said, this does not belong here.
Now lets see why is it being criticized? It is because Silverlight does not support a widely used open standard? Silverlight also does not support another open standard with a far wider acceptance than SVG. But it is not being criticized for that. So, not supporting SVG is not the reason for its criticism. Its because IE does not support SVG. Thats the point I am trying to make. Silverlight is not IE 8, so we should not mix criticisms of IE with Silverlight. SL isnt out there to fix the problems of IE, its target is the problems not addressed by browsers in general. Silverlight is not a browser, it is to be used in conjunction with a browser. The criticism also does not hold in cases when Silverlight is hosted by a browser other than IE. That makes the claim that it is a criticim of Silverligt invalid. The article mixes criticism of IE and criticism of Microsoft and criticism of Silverlight together.
Also, JavaFX Script also created a "incompatible and proprietary facsimile". So why isnt the criticism there? I get it, it has not come out from the development labs of a "a serial monopolist with criminal convictions for offences against competition law" that has "dreadful products and even worse ethics".
You are wrong in another front as well. This is not the last criticism. By arguing in favor of half-truths, you have missed the real criticism - "lack of cross platform support". If you havent noticed, I had supported you on this case. --soum talk 13:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument that because some other criticism isn't being made, this particular criticism is invalid is typical of your tortured logic. And please stop getting bogged down in details that evade the gist of the criticism: that in Silverlight Microsoft has repeated a pattern of standards-busting behaviour. That criticism is at least in part about Silverlight as well as the broader pattern of MS's behaviour. Your opinion of the criticism is an OPINION and not a FACT, and your attempt to analyse it in detail is OR which is against WP's rules. --Harumphy 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay thats it. I am going ahead with DR. --soum talk 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. First sensible thing you've said for ages. --Harumphy 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: XAML and SVG issue with Silverlight

This is a dispute regarding a criticism about Silverlight centered on the statement "For example, the existing SVG standard has been ratified by the W3C, and Silverlight has been described as a "competing, proprietary facsimile" with a reference to [1]. Please note that the dispute is not regarding Silverlight's lack of standards support, rather the interplay of XAML and SVG.

Background

Silverlight uses a proprietary XML language, named XAML, as a UI markup language. As one of it features, the language supports marking up vector graphics. ArsTechnica opines that despite an open standard, SVG being present, MS uses a proprietary language. The dispute is on the correctness of the claim with respect to Silverlight.

Editors in dispute
Statements made by editors is dispute
  • XAML and SVG have different scope. The former is for UI, animations, documents, workflows, interactivity, and vector graphics while the latter just graphics. So comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. It was argued by Harumphy, who is prejudiced against Microsoft and its offereings, that since they have overlap, the criticism holds.
  • XAML and SVG are technically and semantically incompatible, so the basic premise of the criticism is not fully correct. So, it was suggested that a rebuttal be written. This is not an acceptable solution, as writing it would involve lot of technical details, and it would be difficult to source it. So me and Rei decided its best to drop the line, but according to Harumphy, it would be censoring and thus PoV.
  • Silverlight does not define any markup language of its own, but rather implements an already available one. So criticizing Silverlight on what specs the language incorporates is not correct.
  • What is said in the reference is generic criticism of Microsoft, Internet Explorer and XAML, not Silverlight, a notion which rei also is saying. Heck, even Harumphy admits that the issue concerns IE not Silverlight.

For all these reaasons mainly (read #Criticisms again for full details), me and Rei suggested this particular opinion isnt correct and it should be removed. But this resolution is not acceptible to Harumphy as then there would be no criticism left in the article and such tortured logic could only come from a MS PR representative. --soum talk 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
  • The Ars Technica article doesn't spend much time on the subject of SVG vs. XAML. It also seems to be written as an "opinion piece" rather than as a factual and technical comparison of the two technologies. If this source is going to be included in the article, then it really ought to read like "Ars Technica's Ryan Paul wrote that..." We'll need better sources that get into more detail if we're going to assert the purported similarities as fact. -/- Warren 18:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Soumyasch appears to have misunderstood my position, which is that the criticism in the Ars Technica piece deserves to be reported in the article. I am not defending the exact present wording at all. The gist of the criticism isn't centred on XAML/SVG at all - he seems to have a real blind spot about this point - but rather that in Silverlight Microsoft is repeating a pattern of displacing open standards with proprietary ones. Also, in discussing the relationship between Silverlight, XAML and SVG, Soumyasch is engaging in OR rather than citing sources and has difficulty understanding the difference between fact and his opinion. A perfect example of the latter behaviour appears above, where he has taken it upon himself to write a highly partisan "Statements made by editors in dispute" as if it is for him to speak on behalf of me. Sheesh. Arrogant or what? --Harumphy 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said the criticism should not be here. And yes, I have a blind spot about about the XAML/SVG issue as it is incorrect. This entire page lists why. I am not saying that the criticism that it uses proprietary standards be removed, rather that any reference to XAML/SVG issue be removed. And what Microsoft does (and is doing, according to the ref) is a criticism of Microsoft and not a criticism of Microsoft Silverlight. Thats the point I am trying to make these entire discussion. Thats why it does not belong here. If at all, it belongs in the Microsoft or Criticism of Microsoft article. And last time I read OR, it was a policy applicable to article pages, not talk pages. And what reference do you want? That XAML is not SVG? Or that Silverlight does not support HTML? OR that XAML and SVG are semantically incompatible? Or that the ars article is criticizing MS and IE? Or that Silverlight is not the next version of Internet Explorer? As far as I can tell, these are the only claims I made. Or that I am not an MS employee?
  • Throughout the entire discussion, I can not see you saying anything except that wiki editors are not to apply common sense and judge any criticism for validity but rather display a blind hatred towards Microsoft and everything that it does, screw logic and reasoning. Issues have been raised, I do not see any reasoning on your part to address the concerns, except just saying its a flawed reasoning. If it is flawed, point out the flaws.
  • And in the statements section, I wrote from my PoV. You are free to write yours as well, as long as you dont edit what I said. And if a blind-hatred-against-MS-prompted-vigilante-of-FSF behavior is not arrogance, mine isn't either. --soum talk 06:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, am I right in thinking that we're agreed that (a) the Ars Technica criticism should be reported, (b) it isn't primarily about SVG/XAML, (c) it is about MS trying to displace open standards with proprietary ones? If so, given that MS is doing this in its Silverlight design decisions (as well as numerous other places over many years), then surely the criticism relates to *both* Silverlight and MS in general? It doesn't need to be reported at length here, just briefly mentioned, maybe with a link to another article that goes into greater detail about MS's overall standards-busting behaviour. Are you arguing that because MS busts standards elsewhere, and not just in Silverlight, that all mention of it should be censored from the Silverlight article? --Harumphy 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, let me state in clear words what I am proposing, so that there is no room for any alternate interpretations. There should not be any mention of the XAML vs SVG/CSS issue. What I am suggesting is change the line to "Silverlight has been criticized for ignoring existing international standards, which according to Ryan Paul of ArcTechnica, is reminiscent of Microsoft's ignoring of open standards in other products as well." Is that acceptable to you? --soum talk 09:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. I think we're close to resolution now. I'd like to tweak it slightly, thus: "Silverlight has been criticized for ignoring existing international standards. According to Ryan Paul of Ars Technica, this is consistent with Microsoft's ignoring of open standards in other products as well." --Harumphy 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Consistent with appears to be a strongly opinionated word. How about similar to? --soum talk 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Similar to is the same as reminiscent of, and too weak. Ryan Paul's piece expresses a strong frustration at a broad pattern of MS behaviour into which Silverlight's design fits. Consistent with is the right phrase, because his view is that there is a pattern, not mere coincidence. --Harumphy 10:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I am inviting Rei to comment on this resolution. Till then I am not closing this RfC. --soum talk 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's been agreed that the reason for this concern (XAML/SVG) is in fact irrelevant, then the concern itself (that Silverlight breaks open standards) is invalid until there is another example of such. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were (it's hard not to), but as it stands, if you provide the concern without any examples of it, the whole reasoning is backwards and it's tantamount to argument ad nauseum -- criticizing for the sake of criticizing.
And really, what's the point of removing the SVG sentence if it still links to the Ars Technica article that uses only this example to argue the standards breakage? You aren't fixing the article at all; this compromise serves no purpose but to end this debate prematurely.
Then again, it's better that the article contains unsupported criticism that's glaringly desperate than that it uses esoteric programming jargon to propagate a lie. At least this way, people will have to click on the Ars Technica link before they're fed the same garbage that used to be readily available here. And in the event that more people point out that the concern is wrong, you can transfer your liability to Ars Technica and say that no one on Wikipedia is actually saying out right what Ars Technica is. So Harumphy, be my guest and dress yourself up as a fool. Be glad Wikipedia is anonymous. 70.68.197.145 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC) rei
I've amended the article as agreed. Rei - your comments will carry more weight in future if you learn some manners. --Harumphy 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My manners have nothing to do with what I am saying. I'm not at all surprised that you made such a convenient interpretation of my previous comment. However, I'm surprised that you suddenly speak of manners after all that's been said across the board. I'm also surprised that you act as if my lack of politeness to you somehow affects the truth that is to be presented by Wikipedia. Do people have to suck up to you in order to be heard on Wikipedia? Is that how it works?
I'm done. 70.68.197.145 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC) rei
  • Comment, please factor Rei's comments below into this discussion as well. --soum talk 06:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbit secn break

Rei, you need to cool down. I know it is stressful, all of us have been through this. But a heated discussion is not going to do any good.

Back to the task. A Google search shows that there are quite a few articles that are saying Silverlight could have followed standards closely. So, this does mean that aspect become noteworthy of inclusion. The problem is that unless they give specific examples, we cannot judge their validity, and declare it invalid for use here. But yes a good non-Ars ref is needed for the first line as well. However, it would also be better if we can find another article which claims it is not totally true, as Silverlight supports JSON, RESTy POX, RSS etc, all of which are open spec and protocols. (But since that would be opinionating, we cant add it ourselves). So, all we can do is wait.

As for the Ars Article, we are not supporting any claims made by it. Thats why I think its inclusion is fine.

I am asking for an open poll regarding the resolution, and leave it to consensus. --soum talk 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resigning

What I'm about to say is going to be very controversial, and possibly even down right offensive. Be warned.

It's absolutely safe to say that no discussion with Harumphy will lead to a conclusion. Believing that Soum and I are Microsoft "PR flack" delivering nothing but "opinions" based only on the fact that we speak in defense of a Microsoft matter, he is in a state of denial, perhaps even paranoia if he really does believe we work for Microsoft.

Harumphy also repeatedly pleads to "stop getting bogged down in details that evade the gist of the criticism". Unfortunately, I believe this to be an indication that Harumphy is incapable of comprehending said details, or that he is attempting to appeal to ignorance, as each time, he has not explained how the details raised by Soum and I are irrelevant to the "gist".

If we are to continue trying to improve the article, Harumphy must resign. He is not fit for the discussion. As bad as this may seem, I am simply being brutally honest.

It's incredible how utterly incapable of proper reasoning people become when the subject is Microsoft. It's as if Microsoft entices hysteria simply by being mentioned. Sort of like the Devil in that sense, wouldn't you say?


This is my final piece of input:

The comparison of XAML and SVG is a red herring argument. Everyone has agreed that this is more of an issue of IE and not of Silverlight, and it's clear that it is irrelevant to the Silverlight article.

With no explanation of what open standard Silverlight is competing with, the rest of that section about being a "competing, proprietary facsimile" is unexplained, and thus is no longer a valid criticism; therefore, it should be removed.

To allow something to be cited, simply on the grounds that someone said it, is bullshit. I question Wikipedia's ability to maintain quality with its editors making such decisions.


If Harumphy is not going to quit, I am. And I doubt he will, so sorry Soum, you're on your own.

70.68.197.145 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC) rei

Don't worry about Harumphy. He'll spend the next few months/years being Don Quixote, tilting at Microsoft, while we'll be off writing kick-ass apps in Silverlight, making tons of cash, since that's what the market wants. Maybe in a few years he'll sit back and realise he wasted weeks/months of his precious time trying to insert anti-MS sentiment in a freaking encyclopedia article. Maybe he won't. Either way, anyone who comes to wikipedia expecting an insightful and unbiased piece of information about an article is foolish. Good day. 63.131.25.92 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll regarding the resolution of content dispute

The dispute was regarding the inclusion of certain criticisms, see RfC above for details. As a solution, "Silverlight has been criticized for ignoring existing international standards. For example, the existing SVG standard has been ratified by the W3C, and Silverlight has been described as a "competing, proprietary facsimile".[29] Silverlight uses proprietary technology, such as XAML" was changed to "Silverlight has been criticized for ignoring existing international standards. According to Ryan Paul of Ars Technica, this is consistent with Microsoft's ignoring of open standards in other products as well". This poll is to gain consensus on whether this solution is acceptable. --soum talk 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, not whole heartedly, but in lack of a better way, this will suffice. --soum talk 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Against, We're going to have to explain why people think it's breaking standards, because obviously right now people are making claims about Silverlight breaking standards when they can't even find a real reason to say so. As the authors of the article, what are we to say when we're confronted with the question "what standard is Silverlight really breaking?" It could very well be that it's not, and that people are just saying it out of spite. It's called a witch hunt, and society's done it countless times in the past. So we need to be careful. Why don't we have a Microsoft dev explain why they couldn't just duct tape XAML together with SVG? Then after that we can note the fact that that's the only real broken standard claim anyone's making, and that Microsoft denies it. 70.68.197.145 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC) rei
  • Thats what I said. It would be best to do a refute. But for that we have to find something citable. Until we find that, we cannot just censor it. This criticism is quite visible. Culling it from view would be taking sides. Btw, what do you suggest this be changed to. --soum talk 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On further reading of the articles, its generally not criticizing SL for ignoring standards, rather the criticism is for SL not having been trated as an opportunity to fix the standards problem in IE. So, I think it would be better to state this rather than stating bluntly "Silverlight has been criticized for ignoring open standards". --soum talk 08:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's technically impossible for Silverlight to fix standards problems in IE. We can't refute any of this because there is no particular criticism to refute; it's simply a case of mass hysteria. No one is ready to accept that fact, and it's much too abstract for the scope of this article. Hence I suggest we bring back the only real example we could find, the SVG/XAML thing, and have someone from Microsoft explain their position. 70.68.197.145 10:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) rei
  • So we have come back a full circle, havent we? :D No, I would oppose bringing back XAML/SVG issues. Bringing any concrete issue is saying that the issue exists, as a fact, when in fact it is wrong. And being a fact it can be shown to be wrong (but it will take a long string of words, and unless reffed, question of OR will be there). So its best not to go that way. But with opinions it cannot be stated right or wrong, we can at best show that there are oppossing viewpoints. Thats why I am saying include the viewpoint that says it ignores standards, when the other side comes up we can include that as well. I will mail some MS devs and PMs I know requesting a clarification on their stance of standards and overlap between IE and SL (but the main problem is I dont know anyone on SL team, they are either on IE team or .NET Framework, still I try. But, I highly doubt I will get much information other than what is out there). --soum talk 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Is "Silverlight ignores standards" subjective though? I think it's pretty objective, and it's categorically false. The fact that no one can come up with a valid example of a standard that Silverlight could have implemented means it isn't breaking any standards as far as we know. If there's a standard that Silverlight might have been able to implement meaningfully and effectively, then it's debatable, so the criticism stands. Don't forget too that we're still citing Ars, which gives an erroneous example of standards breakage (SVG). In any case, I think the best thing to do would be to wait for Microsoft to comment.
By the way, I think it might be safest to ask them to respond on their blogs since there they have the "does not reflect my employer's opinions" disclaimers, so they're more open to dialogue. 70.68.197.145 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC) rei
  • Support. The wording is entirely accurate. Has Silverlight been criticised for ignoring international standards? Yes. Did Ryan Paul say it's consistent with MS ignoring open standards in other products? Yes he did. --Harumphy 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

A reference that links to http://silverlight.net/samples/1.0/Video-Library/default.html has been added, but this just links to a 'Get Silverlight' button and not the source cited. --Harumphy 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Its because it requires Silverlight to be installed and you use a compatible version. Then it will play an interview with the Silverlight delevlopers. --soum talk 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it lists a playlist of videos, select the one titles "Mike Harsh: WPF/e". --soum talk 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I shan't be installing it, because the EULA T&Cs require me to license any patents I may hold to MS if I give them any "feedback" (undefined). Interesting to notice too that the VC-1 codec license is for personal, non-commercial use only, which presumably makes it illegal for most Silverlight developers to watch the video. --Harumphy 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
And you call my reasoning "tortured logic"? :D --soum talk 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Are you suggesting my logic here is tortured? If so, why? --Harumphy 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasnt suggesting anything seriously, I was just making a light hearted sarcastic comment, as it seemed to me to make an issue out where none exists. Isn't not feeding them back your IP properties the simpler solution? And you cannot use the codec implementation for commercial use, it does not say anything about the videos decoded with the inbuilt codec. And yes, I dont think there is anything here to be sensationalized in the article (regd. VC-1), anyone who wants to read the EULA can. I will look up other closed source stuff though. --soum talk 08:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In my mind this reference section is an anomaly. The Atom_(standard) article that is similar in size, in comparison has just ONE reference!. Macaldo 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

EULA and VC-1 license

AIUI, the Silverlight browser plugin includes a VC-1 codec that is essential for the playback of VC-1 video. This codec is licensed by the VC-1 patent owners (represented by MPEG LA) for personal, non-commercial use only. The EULA makes that very clear. From that I deduce that in any other use - e.g. in an office as part of a user's paid work - watching Silverlight VC-1 video would be an unlicensed use of MPEG LA's patents. Now, where is the flaw in my logic? --Harumphy 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Didnt I say I wasn't serious when I made that comment? Really, theres nothing to get worked up on such a frivolity. --soum talk 09:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a problem, arguably a serious one, re. EULA/VC-1. Do you disagree? --Harumphy 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Sort of. IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the limitation applies to the implementation of the codec. I am allowed to decode videos that I want to see (or show), not allowed to see redistribute the codec (the agcore.dll file) to others to let them decode videos of their choice. It has been licensed to me and I cannot give it to anyone else, commercially or not. I dont think it applies to the way I use the videos decoded by the codec. --soum talk 09:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. IANAL either, but ISTM that the license permits non-commercial consumer USE of the codec to (a) encode vc-1 video, (b) decode vc-1 video that came from blah and/or blah. No other use permitted. Not only does it (reasonably) limit the licensee to just using the codec to encode/decode video, but also limits the licensee to doing so in a personal, non-commercial context. Is your interpretation, like mine, based on a reading of just the EULA web URL cited in the article or are you using another source? --Harumphy 12:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, my interpretation is based on reading the EULA. --soum talk 07:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

SVG

I have added back the original criticism, without which the refute is out of context. --soum talk 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has failed the GA noms due to the instability of being about a product that is being developed. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

Excuse me for bashing, but can someone write 2 lines in the beginning what the whole thing is about (I found out by now) without using technology words (Flash), abbreviations, and other uninteresting technical details. What can the user do with it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.244.6 (talk • contribs)

Doesnt the overview section state this only? With version 1.0, you can use it as in-browser media player for WMV/VC-1/WMA/MP3/JPEG/PNG media and also for vector graphics. They can be programmed with javascript for animation (using any of the media types, and of course, text), a la Adobe Flash. With 1.1, the programming logic can be written in .NET languages like C#. What can .NET Framework do? Pretty much everything, but when running in browser, there are several limitations. Read the Silverlight 1.1 section for details. --soum talk 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mono, and Linux

Should something about this be featured? [2] --172.209.12.254 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article already sets up the premise for Moonlight. Any details should go to its own article. --soum talk 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This might be relevant: http://www.sdtimes.com/printArticle/LatestNews-20070801-46.html 70.68.197.145 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)rei
I am removing the lack of support for Linux from the criticisms section. With the announcement of Moonlight, it seems like this is not a concern. I have seen concern that Microsoft will stop supporting Linux in the future, but have yet to see any reliable sources for this (just comments on Slashdot and the like). 67.168.161.111 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3

Microsoft is using Halo 3 to coax people into installing Silverlight to read the manual early. Silverlight Halo 3 page. JAF1970 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I just realized Wikimedia foundation is using Wikipedia to coax people into using web browsers!!!!
Silverlight is a content format, content is being presented in that format. Whats the big deal in that? Its not like you cannot play Halo 3 if you don't install silverlight. So, if you don't want to install silverlight just don't. Its as simple as that. How exactly is it different from needing a PDF reader if you want to read PDF files? And if you start talking about choice, I will point you to Moonlight. The Halo 3 site works with that too.--soum talk 17:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, that's absolutely terrible! No one should be using a product, because when you use a product, it's like saying that that product deserves more support than other ones! rei 70.68.212.103 12:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Silverlight/Archive_1&oldid=1136254341"