Talk:Microsoft Silverlight/Archive 1

message: i made a few changes to improve the NPOV of this article. 
#The claim that flash is "highly popular" is not cited
#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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I removed the section because:
#it was fake, and MS wasn't involved.
#I do not see reliable sources backing it.
#hardly adds encyclopedic value to the article. --soum (0_o) 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fake as in it was not an official MS ad. --soum (0_o) 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Advertising

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Plus a one-off criticism does not reflect the general view of people. --soum talk 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms secn break 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Arbit secn break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Resigning

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Actually it lists a playlist of videos, select the one titles "Mike Harsh: WPF/e". --soum talk 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: And you call my reasoning "tortured logic"? :D --soum talk 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I did. Are you suggesting my logic here is tortured? If so, why? --Harumphy 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In my mind this reference section is an anomaly. The Atom_%28standard%29 article that is similar in size, in comparison has just ONE reference!. Macaldo 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There appears to be a problem, arguably a serious one, re. EULA/VC-1. Do you disagree? --Harumphy 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yep, my interpretation is based on reading the EULA. --soum talk 07:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EULA and VC-1 license

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: Should something about this be featured?   --172.209.12.254 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: This might be relevant: http://www.sdtimes.com/printArticle/LatestNews-20070801-46.html 70.68.197.145 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Mono, and Linux