Flash is not a replacement for Perl since it runs on the browser side while Perl is deployed on the server side. What we need are some good libraries for generating Flash pages in Perl. By the way an alternative to Flash could be the mozilla XUL engine where you could use Perl even on the browser side of things. | [reply] |
"Flash is not a replacement for Perl since it runs on the browser side while Perl is deployed on the server side"
Highly innaccurate. The new version of Flash most certainly does run on the server side.
| [reply] |
And perl can certainly run on the client side. I believe we're talking about "common case" here though.
| [reply] |
I agree strongly Perl needs good libraries for generating Flash pages.
| [reply] |
A 4 way live voice chat with complicated moving graphics is something that Flash would be good for. I guess you might not consider these things "useless frills," but those are the kind of things I had in mind when I wrote that phrase. Maybe there is a place "in the future" for Flash, but for now, that place is not the same as information-based websites. Commercials, games, and other distractions in Flash are fine, but again we get back to what I consider "useless frills." I'm sure many people will disagree with that label, but it describes accurately how I feel about these things.
Perhaps my head is stuck in the sand, but I believe text is here to stay. I like it a lot. And putting text in Flash just doesn't work. That's what I was complaining about, and that's something you completely ignored (or missed). I thought the original question was about exacting textual information from an entirely Flash-based website, so that's the context for my reply. I might have misread the question, but even if I did, I still stand by my statements (with regard to text-based information).
Update: Also, I don't quite understand why you brought up the point that Perl will "fade into obscurity." Perhaps you were just making some random comments, but as part of your reply it makes no sense to me. But if you want me to reply to that too, then I disagree. I think Perl still is in a very good position for "ordinary" websites. Even if there eventually is a place for the revolutionary audio/visual Flash-based site, there will still be a place for the text-based site.
| [reply] |
"Perl is gonna fade into obscurity for many web applications if it doesn't address it's deficiencies in state of the art web audio/video."
IE, if Perl remains a text based web language, it might not be important for a new generation of Image based websites. Not suggesting Perl would go away, just lose prominence in an area it is strong in if it fails to adapt to a new world.
"I think Perl still is in a very good position for "ordinary" websites." -
I agree completely, Perl is excellent for what is an ordinary website today. But, any web technology not prepared to move beyond HTML-only seems vulnerable in the relatively near future for mass market web programming. Pretty much as soon as dialup is uncommon and higher speed access is the norm. Many programmers prefer text based information for a web site. Perhaps the average person is more comfortable with a web site that more closely resembles an interctive TV experience???
| [reply] |
Many programmers prefer text based information for a web site. Perhaps the average person is more comfortable with a web site that more closely resembles an interctive TV experience
I think this is where our difference of opinion lies. This appears to be an irreconcilable difference between me and you, and it would be pointless to debate it further. At least we've both made our positions clear, and hopefully we are at least satisfied with what we've said so far.
One thing you haven't addressed, which is really the main point behind this whole discussion, is Flash's accessibility. As far as I know, it has none. If a person doesn't have Macromedia's Flash player, a visual display, and a set of speakers, that person cannot fully enjoy the "benefits" it brings. This is the main problem I see, and this is why I get upset when sites use Flash extensively. If we want to use the TV analogy, then perhaps Flash needs something along the lines of Closed Captions. Closed Captions are a plain-text stream that's embedded in the TV signal. This allows any device that can understand the TV signal to extract them and do what seems prudent. Usually they're displayed as words along the bottom of the screen. Without basic, rudimentary accessibility features like this, Flash remains a problem.
The original question is a perfect example of this. The OP was asking if there is a standard way to extract text from a Flash-based site, and based on the replies it received, it appears there isn't. Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this when I first posted, but maybe now you'll understand where I'm coming from.
PS: I thought about making this point privately, via /msg, rather than continuing this thread even further, but I decided I'd rather have my opinion explained in full public view. I might get a few downvotes (as my previous post did initially), or this post might be completely ignored, but I feel it's worth it to explain myself fully.
| [reply] |
Flash is not very helpful for:
- low-bandwidth connections (e.g. cell phone)
- blind or otherwise disabled people
- license-free development
Ted
| [reply] |