Another old bit regarding terminology. The story (the veracity of which is arguable) goes that Euler (the mathematician) once claimed to prove the existence of god to Diderot by writing down a mathematical equation. That’s nonsense of course, but one does not show it’s nonsense by taking on the mathematical equation(*).
Similarly, there has been a lot of hand-wringing in the tech blogosphere about the "future of the open web”. What’s the worry? A generation that grew up mostly on apps written for the web (Gmail, etc) is worried that the popularity of Apple’s iOS with its “native” apps is going to kill web apps. Well, why are web apps so great and deserve this attention?
Some reasons are pragmatic: web apps can be upgraded on the server side, so developers are not dependent on the user (especially for security fixes) and backward compatibility issues. But that’s pragmatic for developers. How about the user? Consider the fogeys among you who refuse to abandon Eudora or whatever bit of software you have grown attached to :-).
Other reasons are philosophical: hence the reference to the “open” web. But what’s “open” and what is the “web"? Is it a technical matter? Are these a technical term? Joe Hewitt, one of the authors of the Firefox web browser and an accomplished developer (e.g: he wrote that Facebook app you use on your iPhone), seems to think so: he offers a very quixotic definition: the open web is not open interface languages like HTML or CSS, but, per him, it is *only* the particular communications protocol — HTTP — that is used by your browser to talk to a web server. That and the ability to have hyperlinks. Huh? This he finds “liberating”. Why? And how is this “open”, a term that implies similar liberation or equivalent for non-specialist users?
One could get technical and argue against him on technical grounds. You could say to him: HTTP is a lousy protocol, especially if you are going to go ahead and make it the de facto application layer protocol, as your definition suggests.
You could argue historically by pointing out that long before the “open web” was the “open Internet” (which he conflates with the web in his usage) which in fact did run on *open* protocols (not just one, HTTP). You wouldn’t need to know technical jargon (IMAP, SMTP, so on) to do that. You would just say: hey man, before your great “open web”, I could use a fast email reader with advanced features including “drag and drop” to exchange email, not your stunted open web Yahoo mail or Gmail.
But most important are really the sociopolitical claims surrounding “open” and “liberating”. Is the “open” web app paradigm around which idea Android/Google is built (per some of Google’s claims) more liberating for the user than Apple’s “walled garden” which nevertheless, for the first time ever, liberates the user and technology from the clutches of telcos? Again, that's not a technical matter, though I am sure technicians will labour to cast it as such. Note Hewitt’s best hope for the web: a benevolent dictator to replace all the standardisation bodies and quasi-democratic committees.
—ravi
(*) Hence my claim: RTB is a cop out! :-)