[Cassini (Unverified) Posted Mar 18th 2008 4:27AM]

I'm sorry to say, but this Engadget blog entry is one of the most confusing posts I've read in a while.

Quoting part of the post:


1.) "Microsoft's Silverlight rich internet development platform... Silverlight 1.0 for Mobile (as it's being called) will be available to developers in the second quarter of the year, putting it roughly on the same timeline that Nokia has settled on for the S60 version of the browser plugin."

In the first half of that sentence, twice, Silverlight is referred to as a development platform (DP), and in the second half of the sentence it's referred to once as a browser plugin. So Silverlight is both a DP and a plugin?


2.) "Unfortunately, the first version will only support Silverlight 1.0..."

Taking into consideration the confusion from the first sentences, the second sentence above only adds to the muddle and makes no sense. There's mention of the "first version". The first version of what? The browser plugin? If Silverlight 1.0 for Mobile is being used to develop a Silverlight browser plugin (which is the most I can make of all this), then how does it make sense to say that the resulting software supports its own development platform? That doesn't make a lick of sense for a number of reasons.

And if both the plugin and the DP are "first versions", then what's so "unfortunate" about it all?

I don't get it.


Can someone please clarify what's this is all about with some plain English?

I don't mean to come across harsh in any way, and sure, I could Google it for more info which I suppose I'll have to do, but there's nothing wrong with pushing a bit once in a while for more journalistic clarity and/or accuracy when using Engadget as a technology news source.

[Cassini (Unverified) Posted Mar 19th 2008 3:29AM]

OK, after a bit of research, I've got a better grasp on this technology now.

'Twas a bit confusing, Ngadget.