ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
for Director developers
http://www.director-online.com/buildArticle.php?id19 is a newly published article I wrote
that may be of interest to Director developers.
It's an overview of Windows For Shockwave 3.0 (WFS 3.0), which is a set of behaviors for
Director 8+ (not an Xtra) I wrote that enables drag and drop creation of on-Stage windows, modal
dialog boxes, cascading menus, right-click (Control+click in Mac) pop-up menus, other
multi-sprites, and good cursor image control. It can be used in the creation of Shockwave movies
or Projectors. The drag and drop behaviors are suitable for Director developers with no Lingo
knowledge. WFS also supplies an extensive API for programmers to access more advanced
functionality.
In authoring tools/languages such as C++, Delphi, Visual Basic, etc, there is no Score
(timeline) and development proceeds window-by-window or menu-by-menu. The resulting applications
are, conceptually, one-frame movies in which objects are dynamically created and destroyed. WFS
3.0 aims at giving Director developers the ability to create high-performance online
applications window-by-window or menu-by-menu.
ja
http://vispo.com
that may be of interest to Director developers.
It's an overview of Windows For Shockwave 3.0 (WFS 3.0), which is a set of behaviors for
Director 8+ (not an Xtra) I wrote that enables drag and drop creation of on-Stage windows, modal
dialog boxes, cascading menus, right-click (Control+click in Mac) pop-up menus, other
multi-sprites, and good cursor image control. It can be used in the creation of Shockwave movies
or Projectors. The drag and drop behaviors are suitable for Director developers with no Lingo
knowledge. WFS also supplies an extensive API for programmers to access more advanced
functionality.
In authoring tools/languages such as C++, Delphi, Visual Basic, etc, there is no Score
(timeline) and development proceeds window-by-window or menu-by-menu. The resulting applications
are, conceptually, one-frame movies in which objects are dynamically created and destroyed. WFS
3.0 aims at giving Director developers the ability to create high-performance online
applications window-by-window or menu-by-menu.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: New Turbulence Commission: Ekpurosis by Xavier Pehuet
> New Turbulence Commission: Ekpurosis by Xavier Pehuet
> http://turbulence.org/Works/hollow/index.html
i have visited this piece several times over the last few days. my most recent visit was the
longest one so far; i spent about an hour with it.
this is among the most visually/algorithmically interesting algorithmic art works i've seen. the
audio is quite good also; you take your cue as much from the audio as the visuals concerning the
state of the progress; the audio builds and changes, subsides as you go through it, and some of
those scenes when the audio is pounding and the screen is flashing are viewable for at least a
minute.
i like the mixture of approaches here. some of it is symmetrical/geometrical, some is not. some
is quite abstract, some is playing with representation. the representational aspect appears, is
suggested, and as quickly shifts or copies quads. the theme, Ekpurosis, of cosmic regeneration
is well-suited to this dynamic sort of work.
i like the intensity of approach and the length and unfolding of this meditation on the image
and sound.
you can see relation with the work of servovalve (also from France), say, as in "ligne de ville"
at http://www.servovalve.org/2000/1230/1230.html or "urbanizer" at
http://www.servovalve.org/2003/0104/0104.html . This is 'imaging lingo'. flash is good with
vector animations, but director works with bitmap animation very well. Pehuet is using
Director's ability to copy and deform bitmaps and parts of bitmaps, down to the pixel (or larger
areas) with subtle gusto.
for those curious about learning 'imaging lingo', a good place to start, assuming you know
Director and some Lingo, is http://mediamacros.com/item\_files/1006687089/devcon.zip ; this is a
Director .DIR file by Chuck Neal of www.mediamacros.com , one of the best Director resources
sites. This .DIR shows how to use many of the 'imaging lingo' commands in not all elementary
ways. It is by no means 'all there in that .DIR file', but the stealthy .DIR reader will
nonetheless find it fascinating.
i see Xavier has also worked with Jean Luc Lamarque on Pianographique and has a site of his own
at http://seelans.net .
it really ekpurosises me (oop!) to see work like this! thanks!
ja
> June 16, 2003
> New Turbulence Commission: Ekpurosis by Xavier Pehuet
> http://turbulence.org/Works/hollow/index.html
>
> EKPUROSIS is a micro-universe in a cycle of random regeneration. Pehuet
> invites the user into an environment that is constantly mutating and to
> which users may contribute. Mouse movements and clicks propel the work
> forward, and users
> http://turbulence.org/Works/hollow/index.html
i have visited this piece several times over the last few days. my most recent visit was the
longest one so far; i spent about an hour with it.
this is among the most visually/algorithmically interesting algorithmic art works i've seen. the
audio is quite good also; you take your cue as much from the audio as the visuals concerning the
state of the progress; the audio builds and changes, subsides as you go through it, and some of
those scenes when the audio is pounding and the screen is flashing are viewable for at least a
minute.
i like the mixture of approaches here. some of it is symmetrical/geometrical, some is not. some
is quite abstract, some is playing with representation. the representational aspect appears, is
suggested, and as quickly shifts or copies quads. the theme, Ekpurosis, of cosmic regeneration
is well-suited to this dynamic sort of work.
i like the intensity of approach and the length and unfolding of this meditation on the image
and sound.
you can see relation with the work of servovalve (also from France), say, as in "ligne de ville"
at http://www.servovalve.org/2000/1230/1230.html or "urbanizer" at
http://www.servovalve.org/2003/0104/0104.html . This is 'imaging lingo'. flash is good with
vector animations, but director works with bitmap animation very well. Pehuet is using
Director's ability to copy and deform bitmaps and parts of bitmaps, down to the pixel (or larger
areas) with subtle gusto.
for those curious about learning 'imaging lingo', a good place to start, assuming you know
Director and some Lingo, is http://mediamacros.com/item\_files/1006687089/devcon.zip ; this is a
Director .DIR file by Chuck Neal of www.mediamacros.com , one of the best Director resources
sites. This .DIR shows how to use many of the 'imaging lingo' commands in not all elementary
ways. It is by no means 'all there in that .DIR file', but the stealthy .DIR reader will
nonetheless find it fascinating.
i see Xavier has also worked with Jean Luc Lamarque on Pianographique and has a site of his own
at http://seelans.net .
it really ekpurosises me (oop!) to see work like this! thanks!
ja
> June 16, 2003
> New Turbulence Commission: Ekpurosis by Xavier Pehuet
> http://turbulence.org/Works/hollow/index.html
>
> EKPUROSIS is a micro-universe in a cycle of random regeneration. Pehuet
> invites the user into an environment that is constantly mutating and to
> which users may contribute. Mouse movements and clicks propel the work
> forward, and users
Re: FW: <hopper-ex> Re: IE for the Mac no longer under development
> >>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
> >
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> and:
>
> >> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when,
> >> in fact, they are doing much
> >> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on
> >> their respective platforms in
> >> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
> >> fairly closely together, as
> >> they historically have on various projects, including browser
> >> technology.
>
>
> LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
> cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
> exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
> doesn't count).
I still have ns 4.78 on my pc. Because there is some work I like I need this browser to view,
and also to test my work in it, as I do with NS 7.02 and IE 6.
> Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
"purposefully hobbled"...give your head a shake. it's because the person dev-hours that go into
Mac products produced on the level of a browser engineering project do not match the person
dev-hours that go into a project that has 97% of the market. it is not economically feasible to
put the same number of resources on each project. that is why the Mac has been inferior in its
browsers.
> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
> out alternative platforms.......(gotta stop, now)
who you calling lazy, jack? there are interesting DHTML features in IE for the PC that simply
are not supported via, we might as meaningfully state, the lazy Mac developers of IE. It makes
the same insipid lack of sense. fact is the platforms differ substantially in their DHTML
support and not many of us have the opportunity to test on both platforms. so that even
relatively simple commands like window.open have subtle differences in how they react to
parameters and even the sizes of the openable windows. never mind esoteric methods such as
innerHTML. i go where my imagination leads me, mainly. i have no devotion to standards in art
or technology. art is invisible; slips past the borders.
> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
> ourselves!"
Alternatively, they perhaps both realize that the 'next step' for the Mac browser is
OS-integration that MS is not positioned to accomplish for Apple. Once the browser becomes *not*
a standalone installation but something *meaningfully and usefully* part of the OS install, you
can see the dev initiative falls more to the core OS programmers than third party developers
such as msft'ers.
ja
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
> >
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> and:
>
> >> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when,
> >> in fact, they are doing much
> >> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on
> >> their respective platforms in
> >> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
> >> fairly closely together, as
> >> they historically have on various projects, including browser
> >> technology.
>
>
> LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
> cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
> exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
> doesn't count).
I still have ns 4.78 on my pc. Because there is some work I like I need this browser to view,
and also to test my work in it, as I do with NS 7.02 and IE 6.
> Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
"purposefully hobbled"...give your head a shake. it's because the person dev-hours that go into
Mac products produced on the level of a browser engineering project do not match the person
dev-hours that go into a project that has 97% of the market. it is not economically feasible to
put the same number of resources on each project. that is why the Mac has been inferior in its
browsers.
> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
> out alternative platforms.......(gotta stop, now)
who you calling lazy, jack? there are interesting DHTML features in IE for the PC that simply
are not supported via, we might as meaningfully state, the lazy Mac developers of IE. It makes
the same insipid lack of sense. fact is the platforms differ substantially in their DHTML
support and not many of us have the opportunity to test on both platforms. so that even
relatively simple commands like window.open have subtle differences in how they react to
parameters and even the sizes of the openable windows. never mind esoteric methods such as
innerHTML. i go where my imagination leads me, mainly. i have no devotion to standards in art
or technology. art is invisible; slips past the borders.
> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
> ourselves!"
Alternatively, they perhaps both realize that the 'next step' for the Mac browser is
OS-integration that MS is not positioned to accomplish for Apple. Once the browser becomes *not*
a standalone installation but something *meaningfully and usefully* part of the OS install, you
can see the dev initiative falls more to the core OS programmers than third party developers
such as msft'ers.
ja
Re: FW: <hopper-ex> Re: IE for the Mac no longer under development
> hm, didn't realize this had become a Mac vs. PC thing 'til now. I just
> assume everyone hates MS haha. this tho i work in a windows-centric
> environment.
i'm not particularly emotional about which machine is popular.
they are machines and one does oneself ill by identifying one's personality with them. Neither
Mr Mac nor PC.
if it were a territory thing, you would be canadian, t.ny. the mac pc thang has the same fervor
as a type of nationalism. Mr. Mac attitudes are like Canadian attitudes toward the USA.
we got the beaver that bit the apple and big blue, horvald etc, like most other nations. but the
territoriality is both real and insipid like it is with the PC Mac thang. Perhaps your arg is
canadian expat since you use a windows system?
i don't know. i just find the mac pc fervor tiresome.
> more below:
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> >>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
actually the MS and Apple situations are the same, in some crucial ways, concerning the
development of OS-browser integration.
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> Apple has never made a browser for Windows so I'm not sure what this
> means.
microsoft concedes the Mac browser territory and Apple backs Microsoft in the notion that
OS-browser integration is the way of the future, a must-do by OS companies. thereby
strengthening Microsoft's claim about the value of it on their own OS platform.
> MS's statement that they can't compete on the browser on OSX means
> either one of two things neither of which puts MS in a good light: 1)
> they are admitting that if someone controls the OS than it's easy for
> them to knock out competitors, the field isnt' flat,
as i outlined in my last post, your argument is too simple. clearly different types of browsers
can support different features more easily. even in open source this is true. why couldn't
microsoft develop an OS-integrated IE that does not preclude as many standalone-installation
browsers as you like. And there are browsers for the PC, like Opera, that aren't IE but use
parts of IE. Particularly to exploit OS-integration. And then there are more stand-alone
operations like Netscape. But this will be the same situation standalone browsers on the Mac
will be in--and, similarly, some will use the system components available through OSX.
> or 2) that was
> just bs they made as an excuse to kill off part of the Mac BU at MS. as
> i outlined in my last post Apple's browser implementation makes it
> easier to compete in that area on Mac OSX.
It is a question of where they want to compete. you say the kernel is open but the graphics
engines are not. so they have chosen to compete with the graphics engines and such.
microsoft, on the other hand, competes wherever they smell money.
oh my gawd, can you believe it's bedtime? enough email for this cowboy for a while.
thanks, t.whid.
ja
> assume everyone hates MS haha. this tho i work in a windows-centric
> environment.
i'm not particularly emotional about which machine is popular.
they are machines and one does oneself ill by identifying one's personality with them. Neither
Mr Mac nor PC.
if it were a territory thing, you would be canadian, t.ny. the mac pc thang has the same fervor
as a type of nationalism. Mr. Mac attitudes are like Canadian attitudes toward the USA.
we got the beaver that bit the apple and big blue, horvald etc, like most other nations. but the
territoriality is both real and insipid like it is with the PC Mac thang. Perhaps your arg is
canadian expat since you use a windows system?
i don't know. i just find the mac pc fervor tiresome.
> more below:
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> >>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
actually the MS and Apple situations are the same, in some crucial ways, concerning the
development of OS-browser integration.
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> Apple has never made a browser for Windows so I'm not sure what this
> means.
microsoft concedes the Mac browser territory and Apple backs Microsoft in the notion that
OS-browser integration is the way of the future, a must-do by OS companies. thereby
strengthening Microsoft's claim about the value of it on their own OS platform.
> MS's statement that they can't compete on the browser on OSX means
> either one of two things neither of which puts MS in a good light: 1)
> they are admitting that if someone controls the OS than it's easy for
> them to knock out competitors, the field isnt' flat,
as i outlined in my last post, your argument is too simple. clearly different types of browsers
can support different features more easily. even in open source this is true. why couldn't
microsoft develop an OS-integrated IE that does not preclude as many standalone-installation
browsers as you like. And there are browsers for the PC, like Opera, that aren't IE but use
parts of IE. Particularly to exploit OS-integration. And then there are more stand-alone
operations like Netscape. But this will be the same situation standalone browsers on the Mac
will be in--and, similarly, some will use the system components available through OSX.
> or 2) that was
> just bs they made as an excuse to kill off part of the Mac BU at MS. as
> i outlined in my last post Apple's browser implementation makes it
> easier to compete in that area on Mac OSX.
It is a question of where they want to compete. you say the kernel is open but the graphics
engines are not. so they have chosen to compete with the graphics engines and such.
microsoft, on the other hand, competes wherever they smell money.
oh my gawd, can you believe it's bedtime? enough email for this cowboy for a while.
thanks, t.whid.
ja
Re: FW: <hopper-ex> Re: IE for the Mac no longer under development
> > I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> > mind-blowing features that
> > transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> > net integration. but in
> > certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> > the feds can't just back
> > off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> > Microsoft and Apple attempt
> > together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> > necessarily putting the kibosh
> > on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> > OS-integrated, perhaps
> > OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> > what serves the societies of
> > the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> > continue to support various
> > protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> > their deeper browser-OS
> > integration.
>
> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky imo.
I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an agreement to back off each
other's browser territory.
> there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate the
> browser into the OS.
>
> First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
> engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
> way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc.
there are windows popup killers. spy killers. spam assassins and knowbots. a scurvy lot, for the
most part.
and of course you can save bookmarks and delete cookies in IE for the PC.
> the
> rendering engine is just part of the software.
which software? the OS? or a separate renderer?
there are various levels of access to CPU cycles, and different languages have farther to go
through protocols and APIs between their requests and the CPU. the deeper into the OS you can
get in the first step, the shorter the computation time. in short, renderers need all the juice
they can get, and you get that with OS-integration.
you also get security headaches because there's always some backdoor into the OS through the
browser.
Is OSX open source itself? I doubt it, somehow.
> There are tons of ways
> MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely advanced
> web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
Microsoft did not engineer Netscape 6, which sucked. Netscape chose not to support their own
layer tag and not to support a too wide range of the DOM. People came to hate Netscape 6 not for
what Microsoft did to Netscape but what AOL did to Netscape. There was dev despair radiating
illness in that browser. the netscape developers--their job had been to change the world. now
they were working--or had since quit--for AOL and being tarted up and market-driven rather than
engineering driven, and with a smaller team.
when marketing has too strong a hand in an engineering venture, what gets engineered is fantasy.
> The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
> most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
> main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
> and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
> open source;
Yes, well, he isn't the only one on such a team, I hope.
it's true that microsoft works behind closely guarded walls. they are proud paranoiacs.
but maintaining the integrity of source code is a big job, even bigger in open source. obviously
it cannot be without certain flexible but sound security mechanisms so that code is accessed
securely and reviewed by a larger team and is widely tested and refined in accepted engineering
practice.
> uses tons of proprietary tags;
that isn't a problem unless developers choose to use them, knowing they are proprietary. i used
the innerHTML tag, which is not in the DOM but is supported to some extent, nonetheless, by
Netscape 6 and 7 (though not in exactly the same way). why? it's a cool tag. did the stir fry
texts with it (which don't run on the Mac either).
the functionality of IE for the PC is pretty funky.
> allows funky syntax;
That is actually a virtue of it.
> and,
> tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS and
> PNG).
Is there a PC browser as advanced as IE in its CSS support?
> (and don't get me started on frontpage).
I use Dreamweaver and notepad.
> There is already
> competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
> OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
> easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing any
> competition, they're encouraging it.
t.whid, you are not aware of the IE Active X control that developers can insert into their
applications. This control allows developers to do just what you are describing on the PC and
has been around for quite a while: since IE 4--that was a big part of OS-integration--so that
the system always had a OLE compliant Active X control for whatever application wanted one at
run-time.
> I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
> service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you needed
> a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
i agree. also, as net.artists, we do have an interest in OS-browser integration.
> And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
> like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
Not at all. There are other Mac browsers, are there not, made by private companies? Same
principle as with Microsoft, only on a different platform. Clearly it isn't the case though that
the same logic applies to Internet Explorer and the Windows platform. Ooooohhhhh no. It walks
like a duck and it talks like a duck, t.whid. Mac is a smaller duck, but a duck no the wat.
What we are witnessing is a change in the perception concerning OS-browser integration from 97
to now. people can see now that those browser controls being insertable into applications is an
important possibility in *meaningful* integration of the net into the desktop. This is true for
the Mac and Windows. i'm not sure how separable the IE renderer is from the browser in the
Active X control. Quite, I would think, given how you can get rid of all the browser chrome in
IE onscreen.
> thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
what i've argued above, t.whid, is that just about all of the features you mention that are in
OSX are also in Windows 98 and IE 6.
i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when, in fact, they are doing much
the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on their respective platforms in
their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work fairly closely together, as
they historically have on various projects, including browser technology.
ja
http://vispo.com
> > mind-blowing features that
> > transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> > net integration. but in
> > certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> > the feds can't just back
> > off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> > Microsoft and Apple attempt
> > together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> > necessarily putting the kibosh
> > on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers--perhaps not
> > OS-integrated, perhaps
> > OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> > what serves the societies of
> > the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> > continue to support various
> > protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> > their deeper browser-OS
> > integration.
>
> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky imo.
I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an agreement to back off each
other's browser territory.
> there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate the
> browser into the OS.
>
> First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
> engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
> way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc.
there are windows popup killers. spy killers. spam assassins and knowbots. a scurvy lot, for the
most part.
and of course you can save bookmarks and delete cookies in IE for the PC.
> the
> rendering engine is just part of the software.
which software? the OS? or a separate renderer?
there are various levels of access to CPU cycles, and different languages have farther to go
through protocols and APIs between their requests and the CPU. the deeper into the OS you can
get in the first step, the shorter the computation time. in short, renderers need all the juice
they can get, and you get that with OS-integration.
you also get security headaches because there's always some backdoor into the OS through the
browser.
Is OSX open source itself? I doubt it, somehow.
> There are tons of ways
> MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely advanced
> web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
Microsoft did not engineer Netscape 6, which sucked. Netscape chose not to support their own
layer tag and not to support a too wide range of the DOM. People came to hate Netscape 6 not for
what Microsoft did to Netscape but what AOL did to Netscape. There was dev despair radiating
illness in that browser. the netscape developers--their job had been to change the world. now
they were working--or had since quit--for AOL and being tarted up and market-driven rather than
engineering driven, and with a smaller team.
when marketing has too strong a hand in an engineering venture, what gets engineered is fantasy.
> The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
> most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
> main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
> and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
> open source;
Yes, well, he isn't the only one on such a team, I hope.
it's true that microsoft works behind closely guarded walls. they are proud paranoiacs.
but maintaining the integrity of source code is a big job, even bigger in open source. obviously
it cannot be without certain flexible but sound security mechanisms so that code is accessed
securely and reviewed by a larger team and is widely tested and refined in accepted engineering
practice.
> uses tons of proprietary tags;
that isn't a problem unless developers choose to use them, knowing they are proprietary. i used
the innerHTML tag, which is not in the DOM but is supported to some extent, nonetheless, by
Netscape 6 and 7 (though not in exactly the same way). why? it's a cool tag. did the stir fry
texts with it (which don't run on the Mac either).
the functionality of IE for the PC is pretty funky.
> allows funky syntax;
That is actually a virtue of it.
> and,
> tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS and
> PNG).
Is there a PC browser as advanced as IE in its CSS support?
> (and don't get me started on frontpage).
I use Dreamweaver and notepad.
> There is already
> competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
> OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
> easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing any
> competition, they're encouraging it.
t.whid, you are not aware of the IE Active X control that developers can insert into their
applications. This control allows developers to do just what you are describing on the PC and
has been around for quite a while: since IE 4--that was a big part of OS-integration--so that
the system always had a OLE compliant Active X control for whatever application wanted one at
run-time.
> I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
> service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you needed
> a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
i agree. also, as net.artists, we do have an interest in OS-browser integration.
> And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
> like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
Not at all. There are other Mac browsers, are there not, made by private companies? Same
principle as with Microsoft, only on a different platform. Clearly it isn't the case though that
the same logic applies to Internet Explorer and the Windows platform. Ooooohhhhh no. It walks
like a duck and it talks like a duck, t.whid. Mac is a smaller duck, but a duck no the wat.
What we are witnessing is a change in the perception concerning OS-browser integration from 97
to now. people can see now that those browser controls being insertable into applications is an
important possibility in *meaningful* integration of the net into the desktop. This is true for
the Mac and Windows. i'm not sure how separable the IE renderer is from the browser in the
Active X control. Quite, I would think, given how you can get rid of all the browser chrome in
IE onscreen.
> thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
what i've argued above, t.whid, is that just about all of the features you mention that are in
OSX are also in Windows 98 and IE 6.
i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when, in fact, they are doing much
the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on their respective platforms in
their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work fairly closely together, as
they historically have on various projects, including browser technology.
ja
http://vispo.com