Two companies I have worked for have developed ASP pages that tie into SQL data, as well as a version of the app written in VFP that runs as an active doc launched from the ASP. The ASP also detects if the VFP runtime is installed and installs it if necessary. MS is now distributing EVERY runtime in NT service packs except for VFP, go figure.

I'd like a show of hands of all the developers that have tried to code *serious* applications in visual interdev vs. VFP. It is of course do-able, but the finished product relies heavily on ActiveX controls to give it a interface that is professional and users are comfortable with. Of course these controls have to be downloaded before the user can see the page, so when they hit it for the first time, look out! Now you have a problem with Netscape and older browsers because you are using ActiveX controls. Catch 22.

IMHO

1) User interfaces in a browser are still 1970's compared to the level of user interface capable in a native app that users expect. In fact, ActiveDoc was created to give the users a fully native UI that they are comfortable with.
It's not MS' fault that the inventors of HTML never used Windows.

2) DHTML, and the magical XML still do not provide native UI functionality. Although for those of us that coded ASP apps it does make it a little easier.

If I was wrong, then native apps would be gone by now and every application would be written in a web page using VBScript, Java, or the like.
The achilles' heel of the whole thing is users expectation of a professional application with a Windows UI that xHTML still won't provide on its own.

So I say go for the ActiveDoc if your starting out, deal with the runtime issue until its standard in every SP, and give the users a native UI they expect. You can even downplay the screens so they look like xHTML forms if you like!