Talk:Rich Internet Application

message: At this time ( May 2013) the JavaFX Scene Builder has reached beta 1.1
I would like to point out that the code for the Visual Layout Editor of the Curl (programming language) IDE has been available to developers for many years - prior to Curl moving to an eclipse plugin.
The Curl VLE is itself written in Curl, as is the Curl documentation viewer with its "live" code {example } macros.
G. Robert Shiplett 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JavaFX Scene Builder May 2013 beta 1.1 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Rich Internet application. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728111544/http://www.statowl.com/custom_ria_market_penetration.php to http://www.statowl.com/custom_ria_market_penetration.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728005706/http://www.riastats.com/ to http://riastats.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100519135325/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/aug08/08-19conventions.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/aug08/08-19conventions.mspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529122655/http://netflix.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=288 to http://netflix.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=288
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding:
: Rich Internet Application
Shouldn't it be "rich Internet application" (lowercase, except for the proper noun)? --Mortense (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page is called Rich web application now, with proper capitalization. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This should never have been moved.  "Rich Internet Application", while no longer the buzzworthy phrase that had the cachet it once did, at least passes the threshold of having been once widely accepted and in common use.  "Rich web application" is not now and to my knowledge never has been in common use and strikes me as the product of a (fairly naive) attempt to take initiative and reconcile the "RIA" terminology with the post-plugin world of contemporary Web apps—i.e. invented on Wikipedia.  It needs to be moved back. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the WP:COMMONNAME problems described, there's also the issue that "the Web" and "the Internet" are not synonyms and it's a mistake to treat them as if they are (cf <https://twitter.com/w3c/status/527763367566405633>); "rich web applications" is a strictly narrower class of software than "rich internet applications", which includes plenty of stuff not of the Web—and notably, lots of stuff for which the label "rich internet application" was *actually* applied to in the wild (rather than being merely classified as such by encyclopedia article editors)... -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rich Internet Application" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rich web application →  – See WP:COMMONNAME and the comments in the section above: Talk:Rich web application#"Rich Internet Application". -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 June 2023 

message: The thing to be aware of (re User:SilverLocust's ngrams methodology) is that (a) ngrams are going to be necessarily constrained to 2002 or later, but (b) following Wikipedia's own move, lots of other places will have picked up and followed suit since for better or worse they assume that the decisions behind Wikipedia's "position" are well reasoned—and so they end up *generating* occurrences of the phrase.  I don't think it's a major issue in this case.  I mean, it did happen—other sources with a copycat attitude *did* pop up using the same terminology; it's just that this isn't a huge contentious topic (yet?). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-move comments