Linked by The Bitland Prince on Tue 9th Sep 2008 17:50 UTC
Permalink for comment 329829
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-05-30
At first, thanks for taking the time to write that article. I found a lot of conclusive threads.
I do not agree however on your conclusion about the feasability of indexing RIAs.
Javascript or Ecma-Script or ActionScript or whatever name a derived interaction oriented language will have fills the role of a modern basic.
Underestimated by many, way too tolerant as a programming language and burdened with the lack of IDEs.
Building a RIA today on the other hand, definitely does not involve HTML as a markup language. Starting with HTML and pimping it with interactive javascript methods will die a sudden and painful death.
Providing content to be indexed on a large-scale (to bring light into the so-called dark web) is easy enough for everyone that actually cares. Standards for semantically based markup of pure and simple data are plentiful.
So what's missing? The right budget in the right hands.
Money is a key driver for complex web based projects. And in most cases its motivated by means of marketing or reaching out to masses.
That's where projects are forced to either compromise in technology and implementation or semantic content.
Google has not much to fear but itself at the time being. When trying to make a strategy out of its tactical moves, I see a playful, curious and un-egoed business entity. The strong hold, if not monopoly, in the online-ad industry waits to be succeeded by the next big online-business. But without trying everything possible within the ressources, finding that would be by chance. By diversing and experimenting with every possible technology, Google tries to buy as much lottery tickets as possible.
But even if it increases Googles chances to win, it doesn't necessarily decrease everybody elses chances.
I take that as a good thing.