[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [] open web v. standardized web [was Re: Web app stores]

From: Christopher Allan Webber
Subject: Re: [] open web v. standardized web [was Re: Web app stores]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:02:50 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Luis Villa <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Christopher Allan Webber
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> PS: Also, this is being done under the banner of "open web", which
>>>> seems misleading considering the "open web gaming" stuff:
>>>> ...had a competition in which iirc the majority of winning finalists
>>>> were proprietary games.  Yes yes, "open" has long had problems as a
>>>> term, but maybe the term "standardized web" is less misleading.
>>>> (This isn't to hate on Mozilla, which I think is massively an ally of
>>>> ours generally.)
>>> I wasn't involved in the Game On project, myself. But, I do know
>>> everyone involved, and I can say there were no nefarious motives at
>>> work. I'm not sure what the whole story was, but I think it was
>>> intended as an honestly open effort.
>> I don't think there was anything nefarious either.  I think I'm just
>> personally disappointed in the term "open web" where I think
>> "standardized web" is a more useful term.  This is more me being grumpy
>> about terminology here than anything else.
> I see your point, but I think on balance "open" is still a better
> description than "standardized." Standards can easily be developed
> behind closed doors and come with IP encumbrances that make it
> difficult to build open clients. The web is standardized, sure, which
> allows proprietary services and implementations, but the standard is
> developed in a reasonably public manner with pretty good IP
> guarantees, anyone can implement it, and in fact the majority of web
> users use it through open source rendering engines.
> It's not GPL-forcing-you-to-open-your-code-to-play-in-the-sandbox
> open, but even RMS hasn't argued for that at the platform level in
> many years, at least until the hypothetical day when the underlying
> platform is so successful that you actually have the leverage to make
> that work.
> I'd add that Mozilla uses open web very specifically as a rhetorical
> tool to help keep the *platform* open; if Mozilla were to concede that
> it is merely a "standardized" web that would be a signficant
> rhetorical step towards other "standards" like Flash, H264, etc.
> Luis

These are compelling points and I don't have much of a refutation to
them.  Yes, I can see what's meant by "open web" as "the web as an open
platform".  I don't think I have anything to argue on the matter further
(though the cascading effect of having an open web gaming competition
having mostly closed finalists still makes me grumble).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]