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

[Christopher Allan Webber]

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:
>>>>
>>>> https://mozillalabs.com/gaming
>>>>
>>>> ...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).

-- 
http://dustycloud.org/