Talk:Microsoft Silverlight/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

About links

I have removed some links in reference because this section turned into a farm link with lot of links added by the trick of a citation that is here just to add the link. The linked sites are not reference actually, there are posts of blogs from anonymous persons. Please do not restore the links. And I have not removed all of them yet. If you are sure the links are useful, please put them below for approval but in my mind, these are external links, not references. Macaldo 18:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

All of them are references, not external links (see my response at User talk:Macaldo#Microsoft Silverlight). I am including them here for easier referencing. Almost all of them are from the offlicial team blogs or blogs of developers and program managers who are working (or have worked) on the project. These sources are as canonical as sources can get.

These definitely are references. http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2007/05/11/code-sample-is-your-process-using-the-silverlight-clr.aspx is used to source "Version 1.1 will include a complete version of the .NET Common Language Runtime, named CoreCLR" ("coreclr.dll is the name of the Silverlight CLR engine" from the linked article). "However, in the current release of Silverlight 1.1, cross domain communication is not allowed" is sourced from http://dotnetaddict.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/silverlight_beta_or_alpha.htm ("Note that the 1.1 alpha version doesn't allow cross-domain access, so you'll still have to drop in server-side service proxies for accessing remote services"). "It is done by creating a XAML Canvas with its width and height set to zero, and using its code-behind code to modify the Document Object Model of the HTML page via the APIs in the System.Browser namespace" is sourced from http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/06/13/programming-html-with-c.aspx ("All the magic necessary to accomplish this is contained in a new .NET namespace introduced with Silverlight 1.1, called System.Windows.Browser"). "Visual Studio's CLR Remote Cross Platform Debugging feature can be used to debug Silverlight applications running on a different platform as well." is sourced from http://blogs.msdn.com/nigel/archive/2007/05/09/mix07-your-product-is-a-feature-of-the-web.aspx ("Now, not only do we support running applications on the Mac, we also support debugging the applications on the Mac. So, for example, we'll go here in Visual Studio now, and one of the things you can see that's kind of cool is we have a feature called Attach to Process. And you'll notice we now have a new option here called CLR Remote Cross Platform Debugging. You can tell that a dev actually named that feature"). "Silverlight can be viewed as a web extension of the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a .NET 3.0 technology and not simply as a new web technology. As such, it makes sense that Silverlight uses XAML, not SVG. If Silverlight were based on SVG, then there would be a chasm between Silverlight and the .NET Framework, but as it stands Silverlight's use of XAML makes it part of the .NET family. In fact, it’s important to note that elements in XAML usually represent objects in the .NET Framework; this would simply not be possible in SVG." is from http://www.netfxharmonics.com/2007/06/Silverlights-Adoption-as-Public-De-Facto-Standard.aspx quoted verbatim. That accounts for all of them. --soum ^talk 09:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a link cited twice in reference and that proves this reference section is heavily spammed. But this is not MY problem and I require more advices from other users about that. Macaldo 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a list of what is reffed from where for a substantial number of the links. Isn't that evidence enough to judge their validity. True, most are blog links but they are blogs of the official developers (including Microsoft and Novell) and are thus canonical. Others are of known analysts and .net experts. Those too count as reliable sources. True, there might a link or two that might be invalid, but characterizing everything as spam without giving any reason why (especially when evidence to the contrary has been provided) does not help. What you corrected was not evidence either; it was a mistake. Everyone knows working with the ref tags in anything but a trivial article is a major editing pain. The information was added at different times, and finding references used earlier is nothing short of a nightmare. --soum ^talk 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Silverlight 2.0

Silverlight 1.1 has been renamed Silverlight 2.0 http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/11/29/silverlight-1-1-is-now-silverlight-2-0.aspx 74.65.42.5 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary?

User harumphy wants it in the first sentence. This was discussed previously, around June 21 2007. AFAICT, He's the only participant who insists on it. I agree with others who say that it's out of place there. It isn't particularly relevant to the average reader, and if it was really important it would appear in the opening of most articles on software products. I'd like to remove it from the opening. Leotohill (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't feel strongly either way about this. But here's my two cents. Promoting the licensing model in the operning line only puts undue stress on it, as if it were advertising it either as a good or bad thing. The user does not need us to make their decisions for them. It needs to be mentioned with more subtlety. I feel the infobox is the best place to mention this, as it is not in-your-face, yet is provides more visibility. Almost everyone first looks at the infobox to read the summary of the stuff and will not miss it. But (almost) anyone who knows even a tiny bit abt the subject skips the lead and goes directly to the secn that is likely con contain the info s/he is seeking. So, a mention in the lead is not just thrust forcefully to the readers but is also less effective. Those who are just glancing at the page (and not reading it word by word) will miss it. --soum ^talk 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've argued before, I think it's crucial. Why? Because the web is built on open, patent-unemcumbered standards, and Silverlight isn't. Thus users can only view Silverlight content using a proprietary plugin. (Other stuff does that too - e.g. Flash and Real, but two 'wrongs' don't make a right.) It's also more serious in this case because the promoter of the plugin has an OS monopoly to defend, and MS has a long and miserable track record of using proprietary standards for anti-competitive purposes. It's not in the public interest for any vendor to achieve lock-in, or even in the interest of unreconstructed MS fanboys. Silverlight's proprietariness is a threat to the openness of the web. That's why it's important. If you don't accept my argument, and feel that its proprietariness is harmless, then why are the MS fanboys who dominate this article so desperate to remove this single word from the one place it might get noticed? Also, the paragraph is too fluffy about the Moonlight vaporware, which might never get finished. --Harumphy (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Harumphy, why is it always you resort to name calling other editors? What is your problem that you cannot act and converse rationally and politely without resorting to calling other editors fanboys and paid executives and what not? It is this attitude that enrages other editors and initiates edit wars. Last time it happened this way, and I can see you dragging it down the same way this time again.

I would again request you to put your MS-bias out of the way in any argument, and argue on the merit of the product, not the company that produces it. That said, "Thus users can only view Silverlight content using a proprietary plugin" and "about the Moonlight vaporware, which might never get finished", is not totally correct. If you follow the Moonlight development, you will see it is totally on track to complete its goal in the target timeframe. So, you have a FOSS alternative too to view Silverlight content (a significant amount already works). As for viability of Moonlight, MS has shared a lot of design specs and conformance tests with Novell. True, MS hasn't made them public, but via Moonlight all but the fluff are as good as available (though it might need some extra work, but they can be created). As for its (moonlight) viability (patent encumberedness), it is going on with MS' support and a public covenant not to sue ([1]), so there is no fear of lawsuits. The only grey area is codecs, but Miguel is lobbying hard to get Ogg certified as a mandatory codec (though it might not be in SL2 timeframe). So, the picture is not as gloomy as you are painting it to be. Btw, the core runtime of SL is already an open spec.

Disclaimer: This is not to be counted as my vote for removal of the word. As I have already stated, I am sold neither way on this topic. --soum ^talk 14:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if the term 'fanboy' enraged anyone. That wasn't my intention. Sometimes I write tongue-in-cheek but forget to put the smileys in. :-) :-) :-) Last time I looked at Moonlight's home page, there was no timescale for completion. The codec thing is a *huge* and show-stopping grey area - surely using a patent-free codec like Ogg will only solve the problem if it completely replaces VC-1? Which it presumably won't and can't. And the covenant not to sue applies only to Novell and its customers - that's a small subset. It doesn't solve the substantive patent liability problem at all.--Harumphy (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The covenant not to sue isn't just for Novell, it protects "all downstream recipients of Moonlight" [2]. As for Ogg, its just like having a standard HTML and proprietary extensions. One need not be introduced at the expense of the other. Market forces will choose what prevails. Its tough to make prediction about the time when such a solution does not even exist. Btw, when using Moonlight with ffmpeg as the media stack, it already supports Ogg. As for Moonlight release, it will release with Mono 1.2.6 [3] (see mono roadmap for release timeframe) --soum ^talk 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From the source you cited: An entity or individual is not a Downstream Recipient when such entity or individual resells, licenses, supplies, distributes or otherwise makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. This so-called covenant is hedged with Alice-in-Wonderland definitions that render it worthless. --Harumphy (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The same article says, “Downstream Recipient” means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient and “Intermediate Recipients” means resellers, recipients, and distributors to the extent they are authorized (directly or indirectly) by Novell or its Subsidiaries to resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Moonlight Implementations. So, IMO, anyone who agrees to the Moonlight license (either obtained directly from Novell or via someone else) is protected as long as they only resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Moonlight Implementations (which is pretty much everything that can be done). The only exception is bundling with (not distributing for) non-Novell branded Linux (except for resellers, recipients, or distributors who are in the business of offering their own branded operating system software). So, IMO, its pretty much in the safe zone. (Gawd, I am sick of this legal speak. Every line seems to contradict the previous line!!!) --soum ^talk 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Harumphy (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --soum ^talk 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Harumphy, I think that it's ok to make that argument about proprietary plugins, but it does require explanation, as you have done here. Simply plopping the word "proprietary" into the first sentence is, as soumyasch said, out of place. The article opening should define what the thing is or does. Considerations regarding its license model should come later. Leotohill (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about putting the p-word and some explanation into a second paragraph. I think that would be prominent enough. I don't think it should be shunted into the infobox because that is three-quarters of the way to burying it. --Harumphy (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that important. We don't need to explain proprietary software as a cornerstone of explaining what Silverlight is, in the lead section of the article. Distribution models, source code availability, cost, licensing, deprecation/support status, ownership, and any other attribute that apply to any piece of software should go in the Infobox, if only because we want these details to be in a consistent location across our software articles. -/- Warren 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is neither good enough nor a rational approach, because the importance of the licensing model (etc.) isn't always the same. It's much more important where 'network effects' come into play (e.g. web client-server interface) than something completely self-contained (e.g. pocket calculator). Silverlight isn't just a piece of software - it's also in effect a client-server protocol. --Harumphy (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Silverlight - a client server protocol? AFAIK, it is just a content format that you can stream, download, or execute locally over any damn transport protocol. When hosted in browser, it uses the browser's native HTTP(S) transport. It does not plug in its own transport mechanism. In fact, there need not even be a server to run SL apps. Btw, please detail "It's much more important where 'network effects' come into play". As long as the exteral interface is published openly (SL is an implementation of Common Language Infrastructure at its core + a composited rendering engine + some caveats), isn't that enough to let others join the party? (okay, thats an over-simplification, but implementing CLI inside the browser sandbox is a start).--soum ^talk 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it probably isn't enough, because AIUI it's patent-encumbered and thus doesn't meet IETF/W3C requirements. (So-called "RAND" isn't enough.) BTW "protocols" needs to be considered across the whole stack, not just the transport layer. --Harumphy (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

soum, "content format" would just be a specification for, eh, the format of some content. I know that's not what you meant. SL is, at least,: 1) a graphics renderer and 2) a host for executing code written by application developers. Among other things, SL provides HTTP communication channels to a host server . Given what SL enables, I understand harumphy's point about client-server. Certainly, as more processing and logic is pushed out to the client (the browser), it more resembles my understanding of a client-server model. (which differs significantly from the WP article on it, but that's a different story.) Of course, some web apps today have so much Javascript and Ajax running in the browser, not to mention Flash, that you could argue that they already resemble client-server. Still SL clearly enables a giant step leap further in that direction. It's an interesting point that might be worthy of elaboration here, or in the client-server article.

Regarding the P-word, I totally agree with you, identification of the licensing model does not belong in the opening. Harumphy already agreed that it would be ok to move it out of the first sentence. I'm ok with it just being in infobox - I appreciated Warren's argument for consistency across articles. I'd also be ok with a brief mention of it in the text. Leotohill (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

P-word secn break

Okay, that "content format" probably isnt the most suitable word. But it still defines (albeit very loosely) what SL is - just another way to run RIA "content" in browser. What I don't understand is how it is equated with a "protocol"? You never call HTML a "protocol". Neither Java qualifies as one. A much better term would be an "execution platform" that lies atop the HTTP(S) protocol. It does not need a separate server component, aside from a regular HTTP 1.0/1.1 server. Neither does it provide HTTP communication channels of its own, it uses the browser's capabilities. Neither do I understand how is it more a client-server than, vanilla, HTML. Requesting clarification. As for the p-word, I already said I prefer it in the infobox, but my preference isn't strong enough to push it either way. --soum ^talk 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Protocol probably isn't the best word either. But there is nevertheless something going on in with SL between the server and the client, and it's proprietary. The technical details are largely moot. If web sites publish stuff with it, that puts pressure on users at the client end to use MS technology when they could otherwise do very happily without it. This gives MS leverage against fledgling OSes and/or browsers, thus helping to entrench MS's dominance of both. Opera is now complaining to the EU competition authorities. Moonlight is vaporware and as you (soum) have discovered, when you try to decipher MS's covenant-not-to-sue you will lose the will to live. SL proprietariness is thus a very anti-competitive ploy. We would be doing a disservice to readers of this article if we gloss over this major problem or obfuscate it away into the infobox. It needs spelling out unambiguously and prominently that it's proprietary. I have an open mind about how it's done - all I ask is that it is prominent. --Harumphy (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the p-word dispute. I am okay with the proposed resolution. I am not going into the debate of what is good for users and whats not. I will leave that decision to users themselves. I am still following this up because I want to know your viewpoints about the techncalities.

Whatever goes on between the client and the server is pure HTTP. You can attach a packet sniffer and verify (I have done it). The proprietary stuff starts after the web server responds with the Silverlight assemblies. The server has no more say. If more communique is required thats just another HTTP GET or POST. Any damn web server that can speak HTTP (Apache, IIS and what not) can be the back end for Silverlight. Btw, Mono 1.2.6 has released and it does contain the Moonlight bits. --soum ^talk 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stick to the subject instead of going off at tangents? The OP was complaining about the p-word at the beginning of the article. What is this proposed resolution you speak of? Sorry if I'm being thick but I can't see one. --Harumphy (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The one you proposed. Moving the word out of lead sentence to a later position and introducing it in infobox for consistency. I thought that was decided. Anyways, I am not taking sides in this debate. I am only discussing to point out flawed arguments. All my comments were with that intention. --soum ^talk 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm a little worried about this article having a Criticism section where until recently only a small fraction of the text was actually criticism - the rest was further praise for the product as the critical pint was rebuffed in detail. I recently moved that rebuttal out of the section into the main article and changed its wording slightly, to make more sense in the new context. I see that it has been moved back and enhanced so that, even with the extra two critical points I added, about half of the criticism section is now praise or technical explanation.

What is the point of a criticism section if the criticisms are just used as sub-headings leading to ever more detailed praise? How are we going to claim that the article represents a neutral point of view if the Criticism section contains little but further praise? What do other WP articles have in their 'criticism' sections? Should the criticisms be distributed more evenly throughout the article? --Nigelj (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell me one thing then: How is promoting a baseless, ill-informed, and practically incorrect comment (that SVG should have been used instead of XAML for the sake of fixing standard incompliance in IE) as a criticism justified on the grounds of WP:NPOV? Remove that point of contention, and there would be no need for rebuttal - neither the explanation, nor any quotations (which, incidentally, was the agreed-upon solution the last time this issue arised). I suggest again restoring the agreed-upon-last-time solution: "Silverlight has been criticized for lack of standards compliance, which according to Ryan Paul of Ars Technica, is in line with MS's ignoring of standards elsewhere as well." (or whatever, it can be retrieved from archives). If needed to back up, some other example except the XAML vs SVG issue can be shown. Only that I would propose a change this time. Lack of standards compliance isn't the most visible criticism, rather narrow platform support is. So, the criticism secn should start with that followed by the Ryan Paul comment.

The other criticism (narrow platform support) is a valid criticism. That does not have (nor can it have) any rebuttal. Criticism should be like that - which cannot have rebuttal. Not like the former one which anyone with a little knowledge can invalidate. --soum ^talk 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And how is saying "this thing has does and does this" constitute as "praise". AFAIK, praising something would be like "zomg...this thing does this!!!...thats so awesome". Where in the article is such thing? --soum ^talk 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole section is poorly done. First, I suggest renaming it to "Disadvantages" . That would be a good move toward NPOV. It suggests that using the product involves tradeoffs or choices. I think the SVG vs. XAML issue should be reduced to a single sentence, or maybe two. It should say something like "SL does not use the SVG standard for vector graphics, instead using its own XAML-based design. " The concern about cross-platform support should be reduced to "Some are concerned that MS's support for non-Windows implementations of SL may be reduced or withdrawn in the future. " Footnote these as needed. The "Legal Representations" concern doesn't belong there at all. It's not specific to Silverlight. To be consistent, you'd have to put that criticism into every article about a MS product, and that would be silly. Leotohill (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disadvantage? Compared to what? And if you are doing a comparison (nothing can be disadvantageous without a point of reference), a "Comparison of ..." article is better suited. I wouldn't support converting this to a comparison secn. As for "SL does not use the SVG standard for vector graphics, instead using its own XAML-based design", it does not end the story. SL is basically a .NET Framework-equivalent (almost) execution environment. It supports neither XAML, nor any other language like C# or VB.NET. It only supports CIL and absolutely nothing else. Any other language, including C#, VB.NET, F# as well as markup languages like XAML, must be translated to CIL before use. These translation (compilation) is done using external compilers, which are absolutely independent from SL. Anything that is compiled to CIL works with SL, including SVG if a SVG to CIL compiler is used.

The XAML parser is implemented as a separate library on top of the Silverlight stack. You can very well use SVG if the proper SVG parser (either native or XSLT transformer) is present on the development system (not even required on client system). That way, using SVG isn't at all different from using XAML from the end user perspective. From the development perspective, saying not having a SVG support out-of-the-box is a criticism (or disadvantage) is as good as criticising the C++ standard library for lack of SVG support. If it is not a criticism there, why is it here? --soum ^talk 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this point will always be a point of contention, its best to avoid this altogether.--soum ^talk 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the "compared to what" was obvious, but I guess not. Still, I think "Criticism" has become a code word for POV, but so be it. The section name notwithstanding, I think the content should be trimmed way down. Your statements above, about the architecture (or substance) of SL don't really belong in a criticism section - they belong in other sections that describe the product.

I'm trying to help us find a middle ground that we can live with and that promotes the integrity and quality of the article. I think one guideline should be that we avoid hashing out all the pro and con arguments in the article. It makes the article unwieldy, especially on highly technical issues like SVG and XAML. If someone has a criticism that is germane and has some support at large, then it should probably be briefly mentioned, with footnote references to pro and con discussion.

By the way, I'm not sure are you correct that everything must be externally translated to CIL before SL use. I can't reconcile that with what I'm reading at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb428859.aspx , especially the "deployment and packaging" part which seems to clearly indicate that the web page package includes XAML. It also can include Javascript, and by implication the other dynamic languages supported in SL 2.0. If I'm not reading this correctly , let me know.

Leotohill (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I have been saying all along. The comments don't belong in criticism. That should be removed, as was done as part of the resolution last time. Technical issues, like SVG vs XAML, can be tackled in their own comparison table somewhere else. Their comparison does not add to SL's criticism. As is using an inappropritate misinformed SVG vs XAML opinion used to justify a valid criticism. I am removing the example, like last time.

As for your other question, the compilation must happen prior to execution, not necessarily prior to deployment. If the parser/compiler/interpreter is implemented in managed code, SL can load the libraries and compile the code at runtime, on the fly (as with IronPython, IronRuby or markup languages like XAML or other XML based domain specific languages). Precompilation is needed only if the compiler cannot be hosted by SL (C#/VB.NET). As for the JS API, like .NET Fx, SL needs to be hosted in a running process. The host is a browser and os-specific impl. The JS API is exposed by this host (the browser plug in), not SL. It internally marshalls the JS stuff into managed domain functionality (or at least stuff that affects the managed world). --soum ^talk 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are confusing me. Above, you seemed to object both on technical and informational basis to my suggestion that the SVG vs XAML "criticism" be a one-liner, I thought you wanted to add all that stuff you wrote following "...does not end the story." But now you are saying that you DO want to keep it short, without explanation. Or maybe you are saying you don't want any mention of the issue at all. Please clarify for this muddled mind. Leotohill (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Secn break

My objection is to the "SVG vs XAML criticism" because it is invalid. SVG cannot be used in place of XAML. So, criticizing SL on basis of that does not hold. Now, despite that if the issue is added to the article as an example of the "lack of standards compliance criticism", there has to be a technical refute to it (which cannot be a one liner).

The other solution is to keep out the SVG vs XAML issues altogether. If needed, some other thing can be used for justifying the "lack of standards compliance criticism" but not repat the comment that SVG should have been used in place of XAML just for the sake of making IE standards compliant in a product that is spelled S-I-L-V-E-R-L-G-H-T and aid in promoting the wrong point of view.

I will always champion the latter solution but if other editors insist on adding the wrong and baseless issue to the article, I will be adamant about the refute. --soum ^talk 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We see this now again in Wikipedia - one editor standing up singlehandedly against all other reasonable and considered opinion, citations, references and other input. In this case mudddying the waters with unnecessary technical details and ripping out everything s/he doesn't agree with from the article. It is clear - we have a valid, referenced and cited criticism of an aspect of the topic and so it is reported in the WP article - but not for long ;-)

It's a shame, but it's the way WP works - if some unemployed person, or someone employed to perform the role, has all day every day with little else to to do but to keep an article how they like it, there's not much the rest of us can do. Still, there are plenty of other articles to go and help out on. (Note: I'm not saying that either case applies here, just making a general point before I go) See you guys. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I had to revert the lead, it was not only awfully dumbed down to the extent that it was nowehere near a summary as required by WP:LEAD but incorrect as well. "...software product that allows applications that are accessed with web browsers to provide user-interface features that browsers alone do not typically offer"... - um, no. SL apps can very well use HTML/CSS for the presentation layer with SL being used for code-behind in .NET languages. It might have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with user interface. RIA is the best term to describe what SL is. "Silverlight version 1.0 includes features that are also present in competing products" ... since when do we do feature-wise comparison of products in the lead section itself. You want comparison, go ahead and create a comparison article. "Future versions of Silverlight are meant to extend the feature set considerably" ... most people are actually intereseted in the extended feature set, namely the CLR integration. "...a subset of the animation, vector graphics, and video playback capabilities of Windows Presentation Foundation" ... is absolutely vital, because SL is not a brand new retained mode graphics runtime but just a web-facing port of WPF using the same architectural underpinnings. If you can specify where its too tough to non-techies we can work out a suitable jargon-busted wording. --soum ^talk 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can work out something that is closer to my edit than the (reverted) current. Regarding your points: "SL apps can very well use HTML/CSS for the presentation layer with SL being used for code-behind in .NET languages." That's not true in SL 1.0 - there is little if anything it can do except presentation. 2.0 will indeed extend that to allow use of additional languages and programming techniques on the front end. We could try to work that in, but again, it's a future capability so has to be phrased that way.

I really want to avoid requiring the reader to understand RIA before they can have any idea of what SL is/does.

I put in the reference to other products only because many readers will already know what those products are and do, and so allows an immediate understanding of what SL 1.0 does. Perhaps it can be phrased in some way that sounds less like a feature comparison.

You say "most people are actually intereseted in the extended feature set, namely the CLR integration." You are assuming, apparently, that most readers are developers. I don't agree - our perspectives are very different on this point. Many readers will come here because they were prompted for a SL download, or read something in the press.

ditto for the "subset of ... wpf". I strongly believe that this should NOT be in the intro.

I reviewed wp:lead, I think that what I wrote was ok except that it lacked a "why is this important" statement. That should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotohill (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I hope we can work out something that is closer to my edit" - I am sorry but if you are already so biased in favor of what you wrote instead of what is good for the article will hamper the chances of an amicable resolution. I will still try but be warned that it has already biased me against you and I might not be as reasonable as I would have otherwise been. I apologize in advance.

So you are choosing users over developers? How is that better than the current version which chooses the other way. The lead should present a concise and easily accessible summary, for all, without choosing any way. And what do you gain by sugar coating the lead without saying RIA? For all other softwares, we use the technical name, why this should be different? There are many people who don't know a thing about programming, do we start programming language articles without saying "programming language" for their sake? Anyways, how about, "Microsoft Silverlight is a Rich Internet Application plug-in for web browsers that can be used to provide user interface features, like animation, vector graphics, and video playback capabilities, that browsers alone do not typically offer."

As for being a subset of WPF, it may not be important enough to be in lead. But the issue of codenames, I think, should be there in braces for consistency. And one-liner paragraphs are especially frowned upon in quality reviews.

As for feature set comparison, naming the competitors should be enough for people to realize what is done. We do not need to spell the comparison out.

As for SL 2.0 (which btw, is publicly available already though in an dev version), it takes up a huge chunk of the article. And since the lead summarizes all the aspects of an article, it is too important to be reduced to "Future versions are slated to expand the feature set considerably" (which incidentally is true for all softwares - announced and unannounced, not just SL). As such the most important aspect ofSL 2.0 - CLR integration - should make it to the lead, as it currently is. What part do you think is too techie to turn regular users away? Considering that SL 2.0 mainly contains developer technologies, how to you expect to make it anymore accessible than it already is without dumbing it down to be ineffective? --soum ^talk 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

\\

"...if you are already so biased in favor of what you wrote instead of what is good for the article will hamper the chances of an amicable resolution. "

Wow, that's kind of harsh isn't it? I wrote a new intro, you reverted it, we began a discussion here. Have I been too forceful? Has my language been arrogant, antagonistic, or just plain mean? Have I done too many reverts? I'm trying hard to be a good wp citizen. Please assume my WP:Good Faith.

"So you are choosing users over developers? How is that better than the current version which chooses the other way."

This is our biggest difference. For the intro (only) I'm choosing a broader reader population over a narrower one. Won't there be more non-developer readers than developers? And there is ultimately no loss of information - The information of interest to developers will still be in the article.

"And what do you gain by sugar coating the lead without saying RIA? "

Reducing jargon. Following the principle that, as much as possible, it should not be necessary to read other articles in order to understand the intro of one. Sometimes it is necessary, but this time I think not. Also,...

"There are many people who don't know a thing about programming, do we start programming language articles without saying "programming language" for their

sake?"

No, because many, probably most readers will have heard the term "programming language" and will have some notion of what it means. Not so with RIA. That term is relatively

new (a few years at most).

How about a first paragraph that minimizes the developer-centric references, and a second paragraph that introduces those? Here's a new draft:

Silverlight is a software product that allows applications that are accessed with web browsers to provide features that browsers alone do not typically offer. These features include animation, vector graphics, and video playback. While these features are also provided by products such as as Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, and Windows Media Player, v2.0 of Silverlight (not yet released) will extend the feature set considerably, allowing developers to use .NET programming languages and capabilities of the .NET Framework to implement Rich Internet applications (browser-based applications with features of non-browser applications).

2nd paragaph: Supported browsers and OS's, and some mention of the overall significance of Silverlight. (if possible - I don't have any words at hand for that, right now.)

The codename reference needs to go somewhere. If there was a History section, I think there. Lacking that, I recommend either as a one-sentence paragraph in the intro, or fit into the Overview section.

Leotohill (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True, you haven't been arrogant with your words or actions but the way I read it made your intentions pretty clear ("I hope we can work out something that is closer to my edit") - that you will get the article the way you want, not what the article needs. Anyways, I am willing to overlook it as a lack of diplomacy on your part :).

As for RIA, the term might have been relatively new (so is Web 2.0 but do we sugarcoat it?) but it is not relatively uncommon. It has been and is being used by the mainstream press in liberal doses. I think we have reached a point where the term isn't just a technical jargon. An embedded defn of the word is enough for the reader to continue reading.

That apart, the article is about SL in general, not SL 1.0 or SL 2.0. As such, we need to make the lead target both versions, not single one out.

I am okay with the structure you proposed for the lead. Except for a few changes. "Silverlight is a software product..." be changed to "Silverlight is a browser plug-in that allows web applications to provide features that browsers alone do not typically offer." But I would still prefer using RIA: "Silverlight is a browser plug-in that allows browsers to access Rich Internet Applications (RIA), which are specialized web applications which are closer in interface and functionality to desktop applications than to web pages, comprising of features like vector graphics, animations and multimedia playback capabilities that browsers alone do not typically offer. Version 2.0 of Silverlight (not yet released) will extend the feature set considerably, allowing developers to author the RIAs using .NET languages." (Too long a sentence? Break it up).

2nd para: SL, which was developed under the codename of WPF/E, is avaiable for <insert platform support here>. Importance has already been established - author platform-independent, language-independent RIAs.

I am still not sold on the comparison part: Why is it needed? I agree with your comment that giving users a reference point will help them understand better. But why do we need to spell it out? Why is saying SL competes with ... and ... isn't enough? --soum ^talk 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

\\

I apologize for the unintentional non-diplomatic language.

when you say that ria is being used in the mainstream press, can you back that up? I searched www.nytimes.com for "rich internet" and got only 4 hits over 5 years - none in 2007. Or maybe you mean "mainstream technology press"?

Leotohill (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I meant tech and business press but if you search in any search engine or news aggregators, there is a very widespread usage of the word. And its usage isnt totally limited. Still, I guess I should open an RfC to get a fresh opinion. --soum ^talk 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put a new intro in place. It has some significant changes from the draft I proposed above, which I think help emphasize some of the aspects you wanted in it. Have at it. Leotohill (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I saw only a few minor copyediting issues and one major isuue: SL 2.0 was characterized wrongly as being not available. It is available, but only in an development version. I updated the article reflecting that. --soum ^talk 07:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

The current lead, in the second sentence lists vector graphics as the second most important feature that SL adds to browsers, which they "alone do not typically offer". I have two major problems with this and so intend to make some changes very soon.

1. Opera, Firefox, Netscape, Camino, SeaMonkey and Epiphany all have native support for SVG (see Scalable Vector Graphics#Native support). SVG is an internationally standardised vector graphics spec that supports two-dimensional vector graphics, both static and animated, declarative and scripted. Maybe the author meant, "to provide features that MSIE alone does not typically offer".
2. I notice that all mention of SVG has been expunged from this article since I recently tidied up its mentions, and tried to give it its correct context here. It should be discussed both as a criticism (that MS have chosen to continue to ignore a well-established international standard) and therefore as a competitor (it is already in wide use on the Web - e.g. in Wikipedia for just one mainstream example)

--Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about changing "that browsers alone do not typically offer" to "that some browsers do not offer"  ? Leotohill (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep harping the same tune; as if not repeating a misguided criticism will make SL the perfect software ever written and it seems like you have made it a personal vendetta of yours to prevent that from happening. I say that again, the SVG versus XAML criticism doesn't hold. Let's take a look at the Ryan Paul criticism (SL does not support many open standards and uses proprietary things to the same effect. It should have used existing standards like SVG, that would have been a balm to the wound made by IE's incompetenece). It has three separate parts: 1. SL does not support many open standards, 2. SL should have used SVG instead of XAML, 3. SL should have fixed IE's flaws. Lets see why suggesting SVG be used instead of XAML is wrong:

• XAML isn't only being used for vector graphics. It is used for vector markup, UI markup and databinding (initially). Even if SVG were used, the other uses would require something else.

• XAML actually is a generic XML dialect without any specific application. It is only used to instantiate .NET classes and set properties. The keywords are not a part of XAML but are mapped from the underlying classes. As such, if SVG were to be used, either the back-end classes were to be modified or a mapping layer introduced, or the front-end (the SVG language itself) be modified. Conversely, if a .NET class library is used with the same class names as SVG keywords and property names, the XAML markup will be 100% compatible with the SVG markup and can be consumed either by SL or SVG renderer.

• SL does not technically support XAML. It is implemented as a separate compiler (which can be hosted by SL) that compiles it to CIL.

• SL is nothing but a web facing port of WPF. When you are porting something, how can you change the spec? Its like suggesting that people use a C++ parser when porting a C# compiler!!!

The other suggestion made was that MS could have used SL as a ship vehicle for fixes made by IE problems? Why should it be so? SL is not an IE-extension but rather a cross-browser thing. Why should it fix IE's flaws then? IE made the mess, IE should clean it up.

The only valid criticism is that SL does not follow many open standards. As far as I can tell, that is prominently mentioned in the article. Feel free to expand on it but don't bring in the SVG vs XAML issue as it lacks any technical base.

But no, thats not enough for the editors. A comment has been made by someone. We must be parrotting it. Any analysis of whether it stands on any firm ground is unnecessary and muddies the water. Self refute is not an option, using someone else's claim is too technical and without context, so it must be moved somewhere else so that the pointless and wrong criticism can go unrefuted. Using commonsense is probably the world's greatest sin! Fuck wikipedia! This is zealotry at best. And standing up against this is "singlehandedly against all other reasonable and considered opinion" (care to explain where the reasoning I have given is wrong and where is your reasoning except that Ryan Paul has spoken just because he has a mouth?)

Sorry if I was a bit rude in the preceding paragraphs. I am sick of dealing with this thing in almost every article. Not in sync with some philosophy? Lets go and game it to make it presented as negatively as possible. I am really sick of this!!! Anyways, the other point you mention has very valid ground. "Browsers alone do not typically offer" is probably a very strong claim to go without a cite (and even inspite of a cite, it will be baseless because it can be easily refuted). Lets see what does SL add:

• Animation: Was already possible using DHTML/JavaScript and HTML/Time. Supported in probably all browsers in current usage.
• Vector graphics: IE5+ (using VML: might not be the language people want but it still is vector graphics), FF/Safari/Opera: SVG
• Interactivity: HTML Forms anyone?
• Client side persistent offline storage: IE5+ (userData), FF/Safari: DOM Storage, no idea about Opera.
• Advanced graphics subsystem: FF/Safari/Opera (Canvas), IE (using the DirectX ActiveX controls)
• REST Web Services: Support HTTP and XML? You already support these then.
• XML Data Binding: IE5+ (XML Data Islands), no idea about others

So, SL 1.0 provides nothing that isn't typically possible in browsers alone (by that I mean the native browser + extensions that ship with it and are available on a fresh uncustomized install). SL 2.0 allows code behind in languages other than JavaScript, but that was also possible with cross-compilation (SL uses CIL as the intermediate language, JS could very well have been used (and has been used in many apps like Script#) thus available to typical browsers). How well it would have worked is not the question here, the point is it would have been possible. As such, the claim the browsers alone cannot typically offer is not a correct one. It should be removed. I am being bold and doing it. --soum ^talk 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a largely incomprehensible response. I hope you feel better, but it did me (nor WP) no good.

1. You site no references - all the points you make are entirely your own original research
2. I'm not harping on - this is the second time I've mentioned this. If you find yourself "sick of dealing with this thing in almost every article", maybe it's because you are wrong to edit in this way, and are swimming against the tide of people trying to improve WP articles for the greater good?
3. XAML and SVG are one-to-one replaceable in a great many cases, just different enough to be mutually incompatible[4][5].

SVG

 <path d="M10,15c10,10,10,0,40,0c30,0,30,10,40,0q-10,30-40,30q-30,0-40-30"
   stroke="black" fill="red"/>
 <ellipse stroke="black" fill="white" cx="50" cy="40" rx="22" ry="35"/>
 <circle cx="50" cy="40" r="5" stroke="black" fill="red"/>

XAML

 <Path Fill="red" Stroke="black" 
   Data="M10,15c10,10,10,0,40,0c30,0,30,10,40,0q-10,30-40,30q-30,0-40-30"/>
 <Ellipse Height="70" Width="44" Canvas.Top="5" Canvas.Left="28" Fill="white" 
   Stroke="black"/>
 <Ellipse Fill="red" Stroke="black" Width="10" Height="10" Canvas.Top="35" 
   Canvas.Left="45"/>

There is published and reputable criticism of SL on this exact basis,[6][7][8] and it is WP's duty to report on that. Equally there is a point of view that it's a good job MS didn't adopt SVG or they would have started to alter it to make a MS dialect of SVG, as with HTML, CSS and JavaScript at one time.[9] WP must acknowledge and discuss the fact that these discussions are going on, not try to to suppress it, based on anybody's personal research or opinions.

We are a tertiary, or at worst a secondary, source: we report and cite the published facts and the debates, not invent or re-enact them. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommended that this article have a neutral one-sentence mention of this issue, with multiple citations to cover both sides. Leotohill (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

@Nigelj: This is not about you alone. This has played out over a very long time, probably before you were even aware this article existed. It even went to an RfC. And if you are trying to improve WP, we are on the same side. I am just against those who edit articles to show any philosophy they do not agree with in a negative light.

Just because you don't comprehend the technicalities do not make them "unnecessary" or "irrelevant". We do not report just for reportings' sake, we have a lot to balance about the info we disseminate: verifiability and neutrality being the most prominent and the latter does mean that if there is wrong criticism, we back it up with refutes. (Needless to say all should be cited). And WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, I am very well within my rights to write down a thesis here if I want.

(Read on the next few paras if you are interested in details. This is not intended for the article).

SVG does not do what XAML does. In the examples you yourself gave (I am just restricting to the ellipse for discussions sake) what can be done with SVG is restricted by the language itself and the rendering is also dictated by it. However, with XAML, the language doesn't dictate any of it. It only creates objects and sets the properties. The objects dictate what is done, not the language. XAML just converts the markup into this:

Ellipse e = new Ellipse()
            {
                Heigth = 70;
                Width = 44;
                .
                .
                .
            };

Equivalent C# 2.0 code:

Ellipse e = new Ellipse();
e.Height = 70;
e.Width = 44;
e.Canvas.Top = 5;
.
.
.

If there were classes in .NET with name "ellipse" and properties "stroke", "fill", "cx", "cy", "rx", "ry", the SVG markup would have been valid XAML code.

(Now back to the article content)

The point is, it is provably an invalid suggestion that SVG should have been used instead of XAML - because there is no functionality overlap between the two languages (at the technical level, not at the superficial level). Going this deep to discuss in the article is neither suitable nor allowed. But we have a duty (for NPOV's sake) to not promote the wrong suggestion that SVG should have been used in place of XAML (can SVG do UI layout? does it support a potentially unlimited number of UI controls? can it do databinding?). Sure, SL has got (and deserves) criticism for not supporting SVG out-of-the-box and it must be presented. As such, we are left with two choices:

1. Censor that out for being wrong. Criticise SL for not supporting SVG but do not repeat the suggestion that SVG be used instead of XAML. This was agreed upon as an interim solution to not promote wrong PoVs while giving editors the time to find references.

1. Mention the criticism but add the refute. This is the preferred solution and was implemented. But you with your infinite wisdom came and deduced that the refute (the netfxharmonics quote) lacks context and since it praises SL and MS, it should go to features section and help promote the wrong suggestion. Why? That was intended as a refute to counteract the wrong opinion being promoted by the bloggers and the tech "pundits". Since the preferred solution wasn't acceptible, I had no choice but to champion the only other solution left.

I propose that it be returned to what it was: Mention the criticism (Ryan Paul et al) and the refs and folow it up with the David Betz comment.--soum ^talk 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

UI Controls in SL 1.0

The text states that "Silverlight 1.0 consists of the core presentation framework, which is responsible for ..., basic UI controls,..."

but later "...there are no UI widgets built in".

This seems to be a self-contradiction, or at least it sounds like one. Leotohill (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The first instance is not referring to user interaction widgets but to the graphics (say it is a bitmap, a video, or text or simply colors and geometric shapes) that make up the GUI. Basically its referring to the presentation layer that is responsible for whatever you see on screen - static or dynamic, interactive or not, whatever. I can't really think of a one-word description of it right now. Any suggestions? --soum ^talk 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads Like A Press Release

The tone of this article reads like a press release written by a Microsoft PR drone, and it has seen heavy editing by anonymous users. I'm adding the advertisement tag. Be on the lookout for whitewashing and ad-like copy. Kwertii (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly questions...

This article needs to lower itself to the user and explain a few basics.

1. What would I use this for? The way I understand it, the program is a new competitor for Flash, which is only needed for a tiny minority of web sites (except to display ads). Are there classic examples of Silverlight sites you can give?
2. What about security? I see Javascript and very complicated diagrams of features and I think "OMG if I install this all my other browsers will be as rapeme as IE"... is that unfair to think?
3. Effects on other browsers: does the DRM or some other potential hack vulnerability affect a browser on which it is not installed, and how uninstallable is it?
4. The update I keep getting offered for Vista is Microsoft Silverlight 1.0 (2/26/8), but the article describes Silverlight 2, formerly 1.1. Why is this? Wnt (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1. (Note: Silverlight refers to SL 2.0 in my answer). Equating SL (or even Flash) with flashy ads is a folly. They both have lot more to offer. With Silverlight, you can develop Rich Internet Applications in .NET languages. That means, you can either develop web sites with snazzy graphics and videos. Or on the other end, use vanilla HTML/CSS for presentation but if you prefer not to use JavaScript, you can use your favorite .NET language to code. Or you can write browser-based Windows Presentation Foundation applications, that give a desktop-application like feel to web apps. Try PopFly or the Silverlight samples at silverlight.net

2. Silverlight is fully managed code, which is inherently more secure than IE's Component Object Model based ActiveX system. Most security problems that plague software aren't possible with managed code. Plus things are snadboxed. Apart from that SL does not let any toolbars or such stuff in. So, in day to day usage, you don't have to worry about security. In fact, it is even more secure than any other plain browser - browsers cannot verify any code that runs and guarantee it wont do any harmful stuff but SL can and refuse to run anything that does.

3. Both intended features (DRM) and unintended (security holes, if one is ever found) will affect all browsers. But content has to be specifically authored to trigger that. And like I said, the likelihood of security holes in SL and their exploitability is much less than the likelihood of exploitability of the browser itself (not just IE, but other as well, until FF moves to Tamarin. As for DRM, its not upto Silverlight to restrict your rights. But to the content providers. If the content providers want to restrict rights, SL will restrict them. If they don't, SL wont. Lobby against content providers to be more permissive. DRM by itself isn't all that bad - couple that with greedy content producers, and you get a rotten taste in your mouth.

4. SL 2.0 is still under development, so it is not available on Windows Update. WU still contains SL 1.0, so thats the version you are getting. You have to explicitly install SL 2.0 from Silverlight.net --soum ^talk 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Undermining Linux users and open source alternatives

I'm surprised no one has raised this. Why did MS go and invent their own version of something that is available as an open source standard, part of HTTP spec? Why not support Linux?

And why does Adobe support Flash? why does Sun/Oracle support JavaFx? why did apple develop safari and google chrome? Why doesn't the whole world just use pure html as officially promulgated by the W3C committee for everything?

Bugs

Although it is in developing stage,bugs can be ingonred it it not compatible with chrome,and it hangs some time's in loading stage, or may be it was with chrome only

new version

seem silverligth engine is now 2.0.30523.8 RTW

2.0.31005.0 RC0 -- Lowlander 13:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Text in XAML ? (disambiguation)

Something i don't understand : why does "text in XAML" makes it more "searchable" than flash ? Crawler which don't have a clue about what a XAML definition is wouldn't be able to get the Text or data anyway. So, except (maybe) for the homepage, a crawler would still have to parse the XAML definition, know where to click, and then receive the following piece of text/screen definition. The fact that it could maybe be more searchable would be that screen definitions (and not just "text") are not compiled and written in an open format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.198.164 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

A crawler does not simulate user interaction, i.e., screen clicks and stuff. Instead, it takes a content file (HTML, XAML, SWF, DOC and what not) and reads the data out of it. True, a crawler that doesn't have a clue about XAML won't be of much use but still because XAML is just an XML vocabulary, it is much easier to deal with than a binary format (like Flash's SWF).

The entire XAML markup is in plain text, so anyone can look at a XAML file and write a parser that extracts text out of it. And because it is just XML, any standardized XML parser will be enough. Heck, even plain text indexing would work (albeit, very crudely). None of these involve Microsoft away the details of the format. Contrast this to the Flash format. The structure of the file isn't easily read. So unless Adobe provides the definition, its a closed book. And even when it does, a specific parser is needed. All these makes indexing XAML easier.

Now this is not to say XAML hasn't its problems. Unless MS gives the XAML schema, it is hard to know that the parsing is correct. Also, XAML can be changed in script. So you not only need to parse the XAML but also actually run it and read the data off the DOM. But even without these, you can get your stuff indexed (to a point). That was what was implied. --soum ^talk 11:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Silverlight more searchable than Flash?

I just edited the Overview section adding a note to the claim that Silverlight is more searchable than Flash content, in the light of the recently released Flash player for search engines. Perhaps the original claim should instead just be removed in it's entirety?

Richardolsson (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000 and Firefox compatibility

I've just updated the Compatibility section where it was written that version 2.0 was supported by Firefox under Windows 2000. However even if the Microsoft website states the contrary, I was able to install version 2.0 Beta 1 and a Silverlight powered website, Banjo Kazooie works just fine. --Goa103 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Goa103, you are right that 2.0 Beta 1 will install on Windows 2000 (I just tried it with an old W2K SP4 system), but actually I think the Banjo Kazooie site is only using 1.0, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

I have a feeling it was archived wrong; it is not showing in the Archive box. 74.65.42.5 (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage

What does this program do for the average user? I couldn't understand any of this.Is this article only for folks who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours trying to understand all of the inner workings of a computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.38.251 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Silverlight is a programmable web browser plugin that provides support for rich internet applications such as animation, vector graphics and audio-video playback.

Basically, on its own, it does not mean anything to end users. It is just another way to develop web browser-based applications that are more like standard desktop applications rather than web pages. However, you do not have to worry about it. Its for the developer of the application to decide whether she wants to use Silverlight or not. If she does not, well, you don't need it. If she does, you will need it. If you already have it installed, it will be seamlessly invoked and the application will run. If not, you will be prompted to install and the installation is a one time affair. --soum ^talk 22:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics/Democratic Convention Video

I don't know enough on the tech side to enter this myself, but it seems like an omission to not mention that silverlight has been the player for both of these.

Also, I don't have a dog in this fight, but if the Dem convention player's approach of reducing video quality briefly rather than buffering is a result of silverlight, isn't that an important detail? In practice, the video I've watched from that site seems like a huge jump from previous HD web content I've seen, which is what sent me to the page to begin with. (Again though, I do not have enough tech knowledge to know if the player functions so well because of silverlight)Quinnna (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro was all wrong

The introductory summary of the technology was all wrong so I went ahead and edited it. The problem with the original intro was that it stated Silverlight was a plugin (only partially true - it's an RIA development platform, the plugin is just the client runtime part of it) intended for Internet Explorer (also partially true - Firefox and Opera are also supported) in order to fill its inadequacies (false - IE never tried to be an RIA platform). I think the new intro is much more accurate without being overly technical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.0.169 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has reverted your changes without posting a reason. I'm going to go ahead and put your copy back, as even the first line in the current intro is pretty misleading. 216.6.128.244 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the original was correct. Microsoft's own definition is "Microsoft Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform, and cross-device plug-in ..." [[10]]. There is another product, Silverlight Tools, which provides development support. I plan to revert the intro back to the previous. Leotohill (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

SL isn't just a plug-in. Its a full featured managed code framework that can be hosted by any process provided they have access to the non-public SL hosting API. The plug-ins (ActiveX/NPAPI) is only once part of SL that wraps the hosting API in a browser-specific form, so that the browser can act as a SL host. Any wording to make that accessible to a layman? Until it can be found, a plug-in is the most accessible description and it should stay as such till then. --soum ^talk 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The one I got rid of claimed that it was an IE plugin only. Check the log. 67.81.184.181 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

VC-1 license

The article makes a point of stating 'Furthermore, the Software license agreement says VC-1 is only licensed for the "personal and non-commercial use of a consumer."'

Isn't that typical of any technology which utilizes VC-1 or MPEG-4 (including H.264) codecs? And isn't that also true for WMV9 (an implementation of VC-1) codecs that ship with Windows? Both VC-1 and H.264 are licensed through MPEG-LA. If I'm understanding the license correctly, the license is merely saying that the end user (viewer) is not responsible for any royalties to MPEG-LA as long as the codec is being used non-commercially. However, if you were to develop and deploy a commercial service based on VC-1, you'd probably need to check in with MPEG-LA. Am I reading that wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.0.169 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Silverlight 2.0 compatible with Chrome?

Debackerl has marked Silverlight 2.0 as compatible with Chrome, but I don't think this is official. It might be true for some sites on some PCs (it worked for a test site of mine on a PC that already uses SL in FF) but relying on that would be original research. Many blogs say it doesn't always work, e.g. here, here and here, and as some people have pointed out it is too soon to say anyway. So I've marked this as "dubious" in the article. If anyone has more official info to contribute, please go ahead. - Pointillist (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia doesn't say whether compatibility is official or not. I tested SL 2 support on Chrome myself. If it doesn't work on some websites, it is likely due to bugs on the website itself. With all the beta versions of SL 2, it was quite usual for SL 2 applets not to run inside Internet Explorer, even if SL 2 was installed. --debackerl (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the compatibility because: it is not official (Microsoft official even said that they would consider it only if Chrome gained enough market adoption); it is not working for a lot of websites (see everywhere on the web), making it unusable for average users (which is what the tag says, I think) except to make experiments. When you say "it is likely due to bugs on the website itself", you are making an assumption that is not backed by sources. Hervegirod (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

'DRM support' or 'DRM enforcement'?

I just messed up an edit summary, and of course, you can't fix them! I meant to say: "Google 'DRM enforcement' -> 623,000 hits; 'DRM support'-> 613,000 hits." --Nigelj (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the phrase "DRM enforcement" is used in patent applications by companies making the systems, so its not like corporate America is contesting the use of this term as derogatory or misleading; DRM enforcement really is the neutral-grounds term that could probably be accepted by all parties involved, users and companies alike. Zaphraud (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if you google with quotes, [11], [12], [13], [14], enforcement only comes up with a total around 2000, while support comes up with a total around 87000. Support is the far more common phrase.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to User:Leotohill for his solution to this knotty problem. Maybe the debate will continue elsewhere? - Pointillist (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

minor suggestion for first paragraph

Instead of current text :

• Silverlight competes with products such as Adobe Flash, Adobe Flex, Adobe Shockwave, JavaFX, Curl and the JavaScript programming language.

Recommend following:

• Silverlight competes with products such as Adobe Flash, Adobe Flex, Adobe Shockwave, JavaFX, Curl as well as with the web standards: SVG and ECMAScript (JavaScript programming language).David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "competes with" list is too long already. By extending it to Java/ECMAscript as well as SVG, we're essentially saying that it competes with ALL browser-side technologies, which is true but in a much weaker sense than the competition with browser plugins such as Flash. Should we say that it also competes with HTML, not to mention the various HTML-app design tools? I don't think so. IMO, the "competes with" list should be limited to browser plugin technologies that offer similar features. Leotohill (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Compatibility

I've split FireFox and SeaMonkey into separate columns because Silverlight works on FireFox but not on SeaMonkey - I've just tried it both on Windows and MacOS. Also, the Mozilla browser is completely obsolete now, so I've removed from the table. MarkRae (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a promo/feature spec

While there is some mention of competition, anti-trust, and alternative technologies, this too-long article mostly seems to gush about the great future Silverlight offers developers, content providers, and consumers.

Not to defend Flash, or other Adobe technologies, from mean old Microsoft, but Silverlight is simply another effort to ensnare open standards, cobbled up from every technology that stuck to the wall when they first flung it. Contrast this article with XML Paper Specification whose entry is about half the size. Adobe has never been a friend to open standards either. Silverlight is probably superior to Flash from a developer's perspective, but Postscript and PDF formats are far more useful than XPS. Tarrintoo (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Agreed, the article appears rather biased in favor of Silverlight and contrary to the open standard SVG [1]. By not mentioning the open standard from which it was derived, until late in the lengthy article, it fails to put the topic in proper perspective. Note also that Tim Berners-Lee (a rather noteworthy individual in the open standards world) has gone on record [2] as critizing Microsoft for failing to support SVG.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13421.html
[2] "Creator of Web spots a flaw in Internet Explorer" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26646919/ David.daileyatsrudotedu ([[User

talk:David.daileyatsrudotedu|talk]]) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also no mention whatsoever of problems with jerky/choppy video. These issues exist for many that far exceed the minimum requirements.

---

The first paragraph still reads like a corporate press-release. This article has, if anything gotten even WORSE since this issue was raised. The scant mentions of Silverlight's competitors have been removed or at best obscured. "Adobe" and "Flash" are only mentioned in passing in the second half of the article, in spite of the fact that Flash is far more wide-spread and relevant to web-developers. Reading this article, I still don't know what Silverlight actually does (from a user perspective) that is substantially different from Flash. It might be the cat's pajamas, but this article reads like a Microsoft Mash-note. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Silverlight 3

I recently read about an official microsoft announcement that the following features will be integrated into Silverlight version 3.0: --> Hardware Acceleration --> 3D Could someone please verify this i am covered in work at the moment... Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.124.100 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

This article is badly lacking information on Silverlight adoption on the web. A sentence on large sites that use Silverlight, and possibly some numbers on how many sites use it compared to Flash, etc. 78.52.197.211 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/oct08/10-13Silverlight2PR.mspx hAl (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Python and Ruby

There's a big inaccuracy at the article, which seems to imply that Ruby and Python are .NET languages, they aren't. Can somebody fix this coherently? .

the article refers to Iron Python and Iron Roby, which are indeed .NET languages. Leotohill (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Compatibility

I think we should add Windows 7 to the chart under Compatibility. For the record, Silverlight 2.0 seems to be working with Firefox 3 and IE8 under build 7100. Mbslrm (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting information

In the table it lists that firefox can run silverlight on a Mac PowerPC computer, and then shortly after it states "Silverlight requires an x86 processor with SSE support." PowerPC is not x86. Which is right? 146.137.238.34 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Silverlight 4

I’m not sure it Silverlight 4 (wish list) should have a sections with the other versions. Perhaps in the external links? Rasmasyean (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Silverlight 4 here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.178.62 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

reception or Criticism Section Needed

I agree with the previous poster that page is practically an advertisement for the product. At best, a fortified spec sheet. This really seems to be a divisive application, sort of like Vista was--some loved it and some hated it. That sort of thing needs to be covered on a page like this. The internet is rife with anti-silverlight rants, especially in the Netflix community, where many have lost functionality after the migration from a lighter program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.238.180 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Microsoft pay people to keep their articles clear of criticism on Wikipedia. You can never tell who, or how much, but its a full time job trying to balance the notable viewpoints - some editors may fight back 'like their jobs depend on it'! --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are spreading FUD. Micrsoft only once approached a single independant XML standard expert (the foremost expert on schematron) to improve technical information on wikipedia on the office open xml format article. He had every freedom and certainly was not hired to clear articles of critisims. In the end he only suggested some edits on the talk page and did not edit the article itself. You show yourself to be extremely biased against Micrsoft with the above FUD comment. hAl (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're being trolled by slashdot. Polls have shown that the majority of netflix users love the new silverlight plugin. Sorry. Go elsewhere to spread your lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.168.112 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Instead of accusing one another of being trolls or shills, consider the point being made - should a page about proprietory software point out that there are valid criticisms of that software and/or that the software has critics? IMO it should, particularly if - as seems likely - Silverlight's development is unlikely to be as truly cross-platform as Microsofoift would like to portray it. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/ for more info. NPOV anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.178.62 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the irrelevant sub-argument mentioned there, this article lacks a Criticism section, when something that is up for debate should be written as NPOV or at least balanced (this article appears wholly not NPOV, and I think the suggestion for a complete rewrite under NPOV is highly warranted). It is a great Ad. or company spec. document, but this is an encyclopedia. The one piece that appeared to state an opposing view (in an unsuccessful attempt for balance) was summarily countered, which is a high sign this article blatantly favours one party. Someone, please fix ASAP! (i.e. Help!) --Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article need a criticism section? Do the Flash article, the C++ article, the C article, the FORTRAN article, etc. need criticism sections too? Shouldn't parts of what might plausibly go into a criticism section be distributed to their logical places, e.g., licensing, marketing, adoption, various technical sections, etc.? ATBS 07:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

Hello World

How about a hello world example? ATBS 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

Operating systems and web browsers

shouldn't the n/as changed to nos? (ok, the internet explorer n/a on the non-windows-os are ok) what about the green only sl1.0 and sl2.0 which doesn't support 3.0? shouldn't there a partial template used? mabdul 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had various uses of {no} and {n/a} templates in this table. This version was almost all red, while this one had a mixture. There was some confusion I think as to whether the visible "N/A" stood for "not applicable" or "not available". In the end, I think people who wanted to show Silverlight in the best possible light eventually removed all the red. The real problem was WP:Verifiability: without references, it was very hard to know for sure what browser had some version that worked in what environment, and whether there was some version of Silverlight or Moonlight that could be made to work on that combination. Without reliable sources, people can come along and make incremental changes that are hard to verify or deny. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, that seems right to mee. should we really mention that safari is used by sl over npapi. ff/sm/(opera)/others no? or which api do sl uses for them? mabdul 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Silverlight SEO" section?

This is an interesting blurb, but seems a little off-topic here. It doesn't really contribute to a reader's understanding of what Silverlight is, and if it's included any number of other similar topics could be, so it feels like it shouldn't be here at all. Rssaddict (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you dispute the content? It seems highly relevant to me, if true; and clearly related to the section above about web standards. --Nigelj (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not disputing the content, no. I think it just feels tacked on. Maybe if we moved both of those sections into a "Criticism" section to group them logically, and allow for adding e.g. accessiblity concerns? Rssaddict (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Silverlight on Windows Phone 7

Mary Jo Foley reports that Silverlight for Windows Mobile will only be available as a framework for apps (out of browser?) but Silverlight won’t run in the browser. The article is incorrect about this in saying it's "Planned" for IE6/IE7. - xpclient ^Talk 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mac OS X compatibility info

I was disappointed to see the lack of information on this. For the past 5-10 years Microsoft has been making .net, of which silverlight is a subset, a central part of their windows platform. Seeing that this Windows proprietary API suddenly pops up on OS X is very surprising and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.249.254 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Silverlight is Crapware, does little or nothing, and most people woudn't want it if they knew what it was.

Obviously the entire article was written by Microsoft, which I don't really have a problem with. However, it IS a question of priority. There's a lot of information there, but then a great deal is missing. What's missing is the fact that "Silverlight" really doesn't DO anything (that I'm aware of). And if it does, it should have been the first sentence of the first paragraph of the wiki article.

It's not about what MS's priorities are, it should be about what the average visitor to wikipedia wants to know, and obviously the first thing people are going to want to know is (EXACTLY) "What would I want this thing for ?".

MS Update foists this bloatware on unsuspecting users, changing their computers to adapt to it's agenda/priorities rather than doing what the customer might want. I do computer repair, and have incorporated the uninstallation of Silverlight as part of my service, as well as hiding it in Windows Update to prevent MS from installing it again (along with a long list of other bloatware MS Update "automatically" installs). Most people don't need this crap. Most people don't use this crap, and most people wouldn't want this crap on their computer if they were given the option, AND if they understood that the more crap you have installed;

1) The slower your computer runs, and 2) The more things there are to break, and cause problems.

It's a basic principal that "The solution to having too much crap installed on your computer is NOT to install even more crap."

Silverlight is CRAP. Someone needs to say it, and this is where it should be said. HOW the wiki conveys the idea that Silverlight is crapware is the question.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure WP isn't a depository for consumer software reviews. While I agree with your assessment of the subject, this isn't the forum for that sort of thing. --69.29.15.242 (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But he is right, i have had to go through my girlfriends computer several times cleaning out junk that MS install automaticly, and this is just more junk that people like me, who want nothing more then a computer that works dont need installing itself again like it did today. That was what made me come and look this thing up on the wiki. MS need to respect people and their lives... let us decide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.100.228 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

````Jeff Martens

I agree with everything said above, but think this is also something that should be addressed in the article. Why would a developer use this, especially given its poor cross-platform support?

````Francesco De Vittori

The article clearly and objectively explains what Silverlight is. Silverlight being crap or useless is just your (debatable) personal opinion until you can provide objective facts to prove it (then they would be worth it to be mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenk82 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My complaint is that this article is so dense with jargon that I can't make heads or tails of what this product is or why I should keep it on my computer. Surely there's a way to flag this for Wikipedia articles. One of the very worst articles I've run across. Jeffrw (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

' Dan

I came to this page because Windows Update was recommending an "important" update. But after searching the internet, I couldn't figure out why I might need Silverlight. I was extremely disappointed that the article here did not clarify that. To me, the critical comments above sound appropriate. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge than I, other than someone from Microsoft, could edit this article to make it more useful and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.95.68 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Windows 98 compatibility

I think the compatibility section should include Windows 98. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Silverlight SEO (Search Engine Optimization)?

The Silverlight SEO section says Silverlight content is designed and stored in the human-readable XAML format, which is based on XML, the text-based standard that derives from the same markup language as HTML. All text defined in an XAML file, such as paragraphs of text or button captions, is in standard Unicode format, and can be parsed as plain text by an XML reader or a generalized text parsing utility. Therefore, any ZIP-aware search engine capable of parsing XML or arbitrarily decorated plaintext is capable of processing Silverlight content.

But this is plain wrong from my experience. Silverlight XAP packages (zip files as correctly stated) include dll's and not the XML/XAML source code files. Dll's are compiled binary and not human readable at all.

Maybe there is an option to include the XAML files in the compiled package, but I'm not aware of this. Can anybody confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenk82 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

comparison to Flash?

I think it would be helpful to have a section near the top that compares and contrasts this software with Adobe Flash. Why would someone choose this over Flash? What is Microsoft's pitch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.171.238 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So WHAT is Silverlight?

I have only a PhD in Math, which makes me a reasonably educated individual, but with no special knowledge in computers.

I read the whole article and I still have no idea what is Silverlight. At some point in the discussion, somebody says that the article describes acurately and clearly what this programme is. I beg to differ. An average user (me) did not become any wiser. Please add a simple phrase in plain English saying something like "Silverlight is a ... programme that does this for you. It is typically used to perform such and such a task, and this is why you might need it".

I sincerely have no idea how such a phrase would go. So computer experts might think that the article is clear, but I claim it is tiring and non-illuminating. I do not dispute that everything included in this article might be needed (I have no knowledge, and even after reading the article, no better understanding). I only say write an intro for non-experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.17.170 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. "Microsoft Silverlight is a web application framework that integrates multimedia, graphics, animation and interactivity into a single runtime environment" leaves me none the wiser as to what benefit or otherwise might accrue by installing this application. This article is not really aimed at the intelligent layman. Which is a shame.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I looked around the official websites but the descriptions I found are not much better:

• "Silverlight is a powerful development platform for creating engaging, interactive user experiences for Web, desktop, and mobile applications when online or offline."[15]
• Silverlight is a "cross-platform, cross-browser plug-in for rich interactive applications and cutting-edge media experiences".[16]
• "Microsoft Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform implementation of the .NET Framework for building and delivering the next generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications (RIA) for the Web. Silverlight unifies the capabilities of the server, the Web, and the desktop, of managed code and dynamic languages, of declarative and traditional programming, and the power of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)."[17]

Hmm. Let's start again. How's this?

Microsoft Silverlight is a framework for writing and running rich internet applications with emphasis on multimedia, animations, and graphics. Applications take the form of .xap files and can be run in a web browser with a Silverlight plug-in.

Does anyone want to use that as a starting point for rewriting the lede sentence? CWC 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the lede

Per the above (one-sided) discussion, I've just WP:BOLDly rewritten the lede paragraph, trying to make it more accessible to people who don't already know about Silverlight. To aid discussion, here is what I wrote:

Microsoft Silverlight is an application framework for writing and running rich internet applications with emphasis on multimedia, animations, and graphics, with features and purposes similar to those of Adobe Flash. The run-time environment for Silverlight is available as a plug-in for most web browsers. While early versions of Silverlight focused on streaming media, current versions support multimedia, graphics and animation, and give developers support for CLI languages and development tools.

I'm sure other editors can improve on this. Please do so, or at least comment here. Thanks in advance, CWC 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add uninstall information as part of this article?

I have tried to get this off my system, but it keeps coming back. Uninstall information would be useful, especially since it has been a topic on several support forums. And thank you, I understand that Wikipedia is not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.157.114 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Looking at the article it seems obvious to me that the planet's largest monopoly wrote the article. Any appearance of the suppression of discussion calls the entirety of the article into question regarding NPV. Calling people "trolls" etc..., then "archiving" the history (and maybe evidence that others have objected to the article's bias) creates an even worse impression than the biased article already has.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Archive time increased from 90 days to 180 days. --Kslotte (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reduced back to 100 days, conversations with no discussion in over 100 days are stale/dead. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AIZAWA Hikaru

Please mention "AIZAWA Hikaru", the mascot of Silverlight in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.169.246.221 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Less proprietary then Flash...but controversy over being proprietary?

This isn't clear: if Silverlight competes with Flash, but is less proprietary (as is suggested in this article, because it uses xml and zip which are human-readable), then why is there controversy over its proprietary-ness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.209.130.210 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Short answer is one word: "Microsoft"! People love to criticize Microsoft; sometime ruthlessly so. You see that Microsoft is criticized for doing things that other people do and are never criticized for. For example, while Microsoft Office is accused of stealing file extension without user prompt, Adobe Creative Suite and Adobe Photoshop do the same thing and never receive a criticism. While .NET Framework is criticized for installing ".NET Framework Assistant", a Mozilla plug-in, Java Platform, Standard Edition, a competitor, does the same thing and never receives equal criticism. (In fact many other well known applications like Internet Download Manager do so and get away with it.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 Silverlight version

Windows Phone 7 uses a custom silverlight version based on silverlight 3. This article does not mention it though. Maybe someone could add this in? Source for this is Features Supported in Silverlight for Windows Phone and it states: "Silverlight for Windows Phone is based on Silverlight 3. Additional Silverlight-based features, which are not present in Silverlight 3 but are specific to Windows Phone, are also supported. This topic provides an overview of supported features and links to additional information." MSDN has more on this btw. 92.254.123.87 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Use on WWW

We badly need a section describing how useful Silverlight actually is to Joe Average Computer Owner. Is there any source out there that tells us how many (what percentage) of web pages use Silverlight?

(My own experience is that, except for microsoft.com, only once have I been prompted to install Silverlight. Admittedly I am not a world-class 'Net surfer. OK, that's WP:OR. Is there anything better?) 141.156.148.226 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. The article does need such a section. Here is a source. [18]. It is from Tony Northrup blog, so I think it meets reliable source requirements. By the way, if you have installed it once, you won't be prompted again; so, don't be surprised if you don't hear a mention of it again. Fleet Command (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

According to riastats.com, 75% of computers (as of March 2011) have the Silverlight plugin installed. That means that 75% of web users will never get prompted for a Silverlight install and will therefore probably never know a website is using Silverlight. So "I only got prompted once for Silverlight" is not a good metric. The only reliable metric would be to poll a wide variety of sites in a number of market segments and count how many are using Silverlight vs Flash vs Java vs HTML5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.16.99 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, "I only got prompted once for Silverlight" is a great metric if you do not have Silverlight installed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Good websites like Microsoft.com use a fallback method when Silverlight is not available, so the user is not pestered by Silverlight prompts and some of the contents intended by the developer is shown in a legacy manner. Fleet Command (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of that after I posted. I guess I should have removed my reply, sorry. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

i came to this article looking for just who on the internet employs this software. i am constantly bugged by Windows Update to "update" this software which i have only encountered on msnbc.com during the 2008 Summer Olympics (China) and the 2010 Winter Olympics (Vancouver). one was FORCED to install it as it was the ONLY mechanism to get streaming video coverage (and then it buggy, required enabled cookies and rarely worked on MSIE and completely failed on Opera). yet every time i get a new laptop, windows is antsy-pantsy for me to install and then update. just got new laptop ten days ago. have had to do at least three updates (which installed successfully) and just got yet another notice of an update available (released yesterday). alas, i found nothing on the usage in the article. (btw, big deal that it might be supposedly installed on 75% of computers. if it comes preloaded of course it's embedded all over. but that still doesn't give a clue where one might encounter it.)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New Release and Beta update resources

While editing & correcting the Release history table, I found that Microsoft's "Announcement" pages and KB articles often didn't reveal full version numbers (or GDR sequence info). But fortunately, noted Silverlight developer Koen Zwikstra's company website (First Floor Software) and his Twitter feed (see same link) are good sources for such detail. (I had to download MS executables and click on their Properties in order to read some of the version numbers!)

One good example of detail is from this comparison between SL4 GDR 3 and SL4 GDR 4 found HERE. — DennisDallas (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section - not self-contained, balance, niche audience, etc

Please bring up to specs. see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)

"rich Internet applications" -- excessive, lazy use of hypertexting does not meet Wiki standards for lead section (not self-contained). "features and purposes similar to those of Adobe Flash." But not another useless, redundant resource-hogging, security update-needing attempt at grabbing market share for MS at the expense of the consumer? If not, Why not? What is it's real world function/solution, if any? Any "bright painting" should be balanced with "dark painting," criticism, etc, if any. "The run-time environment for Silverlight is available as a plug-in for most web browsers." so what advertisement? Why would a Web site use it, or a consumer ever see it? "While early versions of Silverlight focused on streaming media," to do what useful things? ....

"current versions support multimedia, graphics and animation," How? "and give developers support for CLI languages and development tools." Huh? Only useful for developers? Must this really be in the lead?

"By mid 2011 Microsoft will have released 5 versions over the course of 4 years: the first version was released in 2007; the current version, 4 ,was released in April 2010 and the 5th version is scheduled for release in the first half of 2011." Worthless ad boasting. Should not be in the lead. "were expected to be supported in 2010." Huh?

--71.137.159.120 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Disagree. It does not seem to me that you have much regard for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Most of the whys and hows that you ask must be answered in the article body, not lead. In fact, your message makes me think that your opinion towards Silverlight, Flash and Microsoft is badly biased. Fleet Command (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Usage statistics not a reliable source

A site called 'riastats' (like any other site on the internet ranked rock bottom on the internet) and a stackoverflow post is not reliable source. DE logics (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You dropped the "cite web" ball before the new links worked. Please check that the fixed versions are now as you intended them. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

video adds in Silverlight can't be stopped, paused or volumed down

In Polish popular website Onet.pl the videos using Silverlight have adds that can't be neither stopped/paused nor volumed down. You can only close the site or turn down the sound for all applications running on the computer. I think this characteristic of Silverlight is pretty relevant for the article.83.7.142.77 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds more like a design decision of their site's player and not a characteristic of Silverlight framework/runtime.FizixMan83 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, but it's the Silverlight that enables it83.7.149.96 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Silverlight provides the API for developers to create whatever video/advertisement player they wish based on their specific requirements. You can do the same thing with Flash, Java, or any other open development platform. For example, Netflix uses Silverlight for their PC web browser player and it can be stopped/paused or change the volume; they could easily not have implemented those GUI controls (as stupid as that would be). If Onet.pl decided they would not implement (or disable) those aspects for their advertisements, then the criticism should be directed at them, not Silverlight. The Silverlight (or Flash, JavaFX, etc.) platform provides the tools but does not dictate implementation.FizixMan83 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WaPo article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-jupiter-the-future-of-windowspc-phone-andtablet/2011/08/20/gIQAKvV9RJ_story.html Is Silverlight really dead, or is it future of Microsoft’s Windows 8 and Windows Phone? This is a question weighing on the minds of legions of Microsoft developers right now – developers who were once promised that Silverlight was the answer to their cross-platform, cross-browser compatibility woes... Wxidea (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ordinary media puffery. This kind of nonsense was fashionable before Microsoft announced Silverlight 5 simply because reporters must print something (anything) if they are to eat. Pay no attention. Currently, Silverlight 5 is in Beta stage. Fleet Command (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

End of Life

Currently microsoft has no plans to release any newer versions after 5.0. This should be added to the article even if it doesn't demand its own section. [email protected] 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlechem (talk • contribs)

Release date of 5.0.61118.0

Hi, everyone

I appears that I should remind that Wikipedia:Verifiability demands everything in Wikipedia articles to have a source. Now, the only source that I have for the release date of version 5.0.61118.0 is the package digital certificate that says it is signed on 19 November 2011. (Fortunately, this item cannot be easily faked.) I assume Microsoft would not wait for a month to publish a package after having signed it.

If anyone wishes to dispute this date as the release date, please include a reliable source of his own.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Moonlight development

The development on moonlight has stopped.

Reference: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/moonlight-list/2011-December/001392.html

Dveeden (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Netflix

Silverlight and its incompatibility with Linux is the one reason that prevents users from watching Netflix natively in Linux. The article should mention this and encyclopedicly describe the situation. • Jesse V.<sup>(talk)</sup> 04:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Relation to html5

Article fails to explain relation of Silverlight and html5, since they functionally overlap to a large degree. Besides DRM, there is probably nothing in Silverlight that isn't covered by html5. And provided that DRM isn't of concern html5 is a better solution in all cases, especially in the view of Silverlight being not a standards driven technology. Yurivict (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would end user ever know if Silverlight is used for anything on their computer?

I can tell when media comes up in RealPlayer, AdobeFlash, WindowsMediaPlayer, etc. I have never seen a window called Silverlight. Is it just wasting space on the hard drive? Can someone give concrete examples of programs utilizing this resource? The info posted is more for developers. As an end user the article is not informative at all. What will I give up if I delete the program? How can I tell if it has ever been accessed on my pc? I can open the SilverLight Settings but they don't seem to shed any light on what the application DOES FOR ME. Please add information geared toward the End User Actual Experience. Thankyou.

108.13.34.223 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Silverlight is an essential part of the user experience for enjoying multimedia content on Microsofts's own websites, but hardly anyone else uses it. I note that trying to view the online Windows 8 demo brings up the 'install Silverlight' begging screen so they are still desparately trying to get people to use it. I have almost never visited a website that needs silverlight to play content other than Microsoft's own websites. The Yowser (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you ever watch Netflix on your PC, or your HDTV connected to your PC through HDMI, then you are using Silverlight. I am unsure if it is used in any other internet connected devices (such as Wii) to watch Netflix. On an unrelated note, could this article have actually been anymore biased without completely shedding the thinnest viel of objectivity it tries to achieve? Honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.138.37 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Silverlight is more akin to Flash than a typical application like Windows Media Player. As such, you wouldn't see it launched to view media from your hard drive like RealPlayer, Winamp, or Windows Media Player. (I would argue that Flash doesn't even do that either) It would launch if you installed a Silverlight app to your system as an out-of-browser application, just like Flash can run SWF files/apps from your hard drive. Most of these uses tend to be line-of-business applications. But if you want another common usage of Silverlight, from what I understand, the last couple of olympics' (summer and winter) online broadcasts were in Silverlight exclusively. FizixMan83 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

64 bit

Just a personal issue, went to go watch Netflix and it told me to update Silverlight. Never knew that Netflix required SL as addressed in these comments. Then discovered after two failed attempts that the Netflix update gives you a 64 bit installation that won't run on my "old" laptop. I had to go sniffing around on Microsoft for a 32 bit upgrade and still haven't tried Netflix yet.

How in hell does a company as large as Netflix make such a glaring error by ASSUMING that everyone out there uses a new computer, and provides no alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondesareeasy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Silverlight basically dead?

Despite the maintenance releases? Former PM said so http://www.neowin.net/news/former-microsoft-pm-silverlight-is-dead Also not a word on anything new in two years as astute observers note http://www.i-programmer.info/news/89-net/6860-silverlight-support-roadmap.html and an expiration date has been set for 2021 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238421/Netflix_to_dump_Silverlight_Microsoft_s_stalled_technology This wiki article reads very much like an advert way out of touch with reality. 188.27.81.64 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The words "dead" and "support" are imprecise and should be clarified if they are used in the article. That said, yes something should be said indicting that Microsoft is not promoting or updating Silverlight. I think it will officially not be supported after 2021. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

History and "Adoption"

The History section is usually after the introduction of something whereas here it is near the bottom. However the section "Adoption" is actually historical. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Deprecated"

The article seems to cite Google's deprecation of NPAPI as evidence for this, but I don't think it should be described as deprecated in the first sentence unless Microsoft has declared it such.--2001:630:53:78:6054:93C2:A80C:ADDC (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

Is there a specific reason why we use Microsoft Silverlight over just Silverlight (a redirect to this page)? There doesn't seem to be any other article with that name aside from a (to me unnecessary) disambiguation. I rarely see the combination with Microsoft, more often simply Silverlight. Silverlight is the product name, not Microsoft Silverlight.–Totie (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There seems to be consensus on keeping it how it is and I would only approve this if there wasnt a standard as set with Microsoft Windows.(non-admin closure) Tortle (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Silverlight → Silverlight – “Silverlight” currently redirects to this page. The only other unrelated page I found is Terry Silverlight. There also is a disambiguation page that might as well be deleted, as it only mentions a fictional weapon of the Runescape game and the relevance of mentioning it there is not really apparent. The related category also uses the short form. If you look at Microsoft’s product website, it is consistently called just Silverlight, with the exception of several logos that mention the company name alongside of it. Federal US and EU/European word marks are for Silverlight as well. Across Wikipedia both names are used, but in running text it is always shortened to just Silverlight. A quick web search reveals the same and I would assert that it’s the common name and the addition of the company name is incidental.–Totie (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose disambiguation covers far more than just the dissection of article topics as per Ambiguity and WP:Disambiguation. If that's not good enough see search on Silverlight. GregKaye 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is ambiguous about it? Please give some concrete arguments, not just references to WP policy. I didn’t rely on just web search.–Totie (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless some more searches: “silver light” on Wikipedia, “silverlight” on Wikipedia and a general web search on “silverlight” without MS-related keywords. My Oxford Dictionary doesn’t have anything on silverlight/silver light either. Is there something else called silverlight that makes this article title ambiguous?–Totie (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Totie you are right and I apologise for overstating that case. None the less I suspect that "Microsoft Silverlight" would be universally more recognisable than just "Silverlight" and I think that my search also gives indication of "Microsoft Silverlight" as being the subject's most CRN.

A search on site:https://www.microsoft.com/ "internet explorer" reveals "Internet Explorer" even as official name but a search on Silverlight I think indicates "Microsoft Searchlight" to be commonname, even with Microsoft. GregKaye 08:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the results though, I mostly see that “Microsoft Silverlight” is used in the page title, whereas in text they just use Silverlight. On technical websites is mostly see just Silverlight as well, which is what prompted me to suggest the title change. Even if we assume that both are used 50/50 and it’s difficult to ascertain the common name, would you say that Silverlight is ambiguous and the natural disambiguation is necessary? I fail to find anything other than Microsoft Silverlight, the Runescape weapon and the person I mentioned above.–Totie (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I would say the WP:COMMONNAME is "Microsoft Silverlight", as that's how I frequently see it being referred to as. Further, this product is obsolete, so will be always decreasing in prominence ever more. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that it’s difficult to ascertain the common name in this case (I disagree with that point), do you think that the title “Silverlight” is ambiguous and requires adding Microsoft? There are many products and services on Wikipedia that we don’t refer to by the manufacturer/developer, unless it’s necessary for the disambiguation.–Totie (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Within the limited context of Microsoft's product website I would expect to it just to be referred to by its product name, and the same would apply to people involved in selling and writing for Microsoft's product range. In the larger context of a global encyclopedia, however, the name we currently have is the minimum required to describe what the article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it the “minimum required” though? “Silverlight” is recognisable whether we add the company name or not, it’s natural as it is also commonly referred to and the official product name, it’s not ambiguous (at least barely, as there is no such thing as ‘silver light’ or ‘silverlight’ and the only other use within Wikipedia is the person Terry Silverlight), it’s also concise and not longer than necessary and it fits with other products where we don’t add the company name either.–Totie (talk)

• Support. "Silverlight" is not an ambiguous title, and there is no common name between the two so the official name should take precedent. ONR (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Whether "Silverlight" is ambiguous or not is not an issue here. Obama redirects to Barack Obama despite having other meanings because it is the primary topic of the term. If the common name of the product is Microsoft Silverlight and that is the primary topic of Silverlight, then it is fine to stay there, with "Silverlight" redirecting there. bd2412 T 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely and I argue that Microsoft Silverlight is not the common name. It is not convincingly demonstrable. A web search, even a Wikipedia search, reveals a strong use of just “Silverlight” in many places, including Microsoft’s own product pages and the technology websites that talk about it. Even the trademarks denote Silverlight as the product name. When I look on my system, is see both as well. There is thus no clear preference for either and given the lack of ambiguity here and elsewhere, I see no reason why we should prefer Microsoft Silverlight over just Silverlight when we could use either of them.–Totie (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silverlight on Linux?

The official Microsoft FAQ link (after Symbian OS) in the infobox, says "Linux? Check. Silverlight works on all major OS's plus all major browsers, including Firefox, Google Chrome", this was actually news to me.. I only knew of a clone "Moonligt" and it didn't support everything (DRM).. Anyway, that link also doesn't say Symbian OS..

I guess the Silverlight plugin could be supported by Microsoft even if not by the other side (a browser such as Chrome). I guess the table is based on Moonlight, hardly support from Microsoft, or maybe Pipelight. I thought Microsoft didn't like wine that it requires (and Silverlight).

In other (unrelated?) news, .NET Framework 4.5 went from Bronze to Gold statuus with Wine.AppDB/Bugzilla Status Changes and "Support for the new Universal C Runtime DLL" is new. Not sure if that is Microsoft's universal apps.. comp.arch (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft Silverlight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080911085538/http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/pdf/Jan292008ExecSummary.pdf to http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/pdf/Jan292008ExecSummary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Firefox support

Firefox will be dropping support by the end of the year. Shouldn't it be highlighted in the table of supported platforms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan3334 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is already a mention of this in Microsoft Silverlight#Supported platforms. I changed the table to now say "Mozilla Firefox 3 to 52" instead of Mozilla Firefox 3 or later". Lonaowna (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Microsoft Silverlight. 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/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
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://operawatch.com/news/2007/05/more-details-on-silverlight-support-in-opera.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227145942/http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-199508.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-199508.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do I need Silverlight ?

As this is apparently an obsolete standard, can I now delete Silverlight from my computer without any problems ? This information would be useful to add to the article. Darkman101 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended for providing instructions so this information is probably best left out of the article.

To answer your question, yes, you should be able to safely remove Silverlight. The only caveat is if you are using any legacy websites which are still using it, though that is quite unlikely. And if you do find that you need it after uninstalling, you can always reinstall it (Microsoft still provides Silverlight 5 for download). Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated

Why is the programme described as "deprecated"? This seems to be an obvious misuse of the word. Isn't obsolete more appropriate?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking of changing the word to "discontinued". It seems it doesn't work in 64-bit (what many have) IE11, while you can make it work there with an exception. IE11 is the only supported IE browser from Microsoft (and it doesn't work in Edge of any other supported browser). [19] doesn't list support for Windows 10, but while it may work there and in e.g. supported Win7, at least in 32-bit mode, their link [20] for "lifecycle" from the other link is now broken... Since the download link works, and you can still install, "Deprecated" is probably the better word, still(?), as it means (for developers) stay away from using is, as if it where nuclear waste, as your users will complain about support, and better options are available for all uses, video or otherwise... comp.arch (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)