[Sigia-l] The future of WWW...

[Michal Migurski]

> > > What if, the web is ready to die as we know it
> >
> > Are there any signs of it?
>
> G-d I hope so b/c I think it is ugly, clunky, unusable, and a disaster
> to the betterment of software interaction design. Please, please,
> please let it die!!!!

Software Interaction Design? The h.t.'s in both html and http stand for
"hypertext," and I'd say that the standards which define the web have done
an outstanding job at what they were designed to do - deliver documents
and provide for a simple way to link from one to another. The fact that
HTTP can /also/ be extended to handle the complexity of RIA's is the
protocol's gift to you.


> There is NOTHING about HTML or even xHTML worth saving ... sorry.

I'd say that simplicity is HTML's great virtue.


> > > and it is time for a new technology to come along and better it?

No one's stopping you, seriously. http://www.worldofends.com/

The web began as a physicist's free-time experiment, and all the
conditions which made it possible are still in effect. There is no reason
why MS, Macromedia, or the Mozilla team can't create their own personal
OS-integrated rich application platform. The fact that they have not done
so without piggybacking on the web is a strong sign (to me) that there is
something of value in it.


> "new"? oooo! scary quotes, eh? A text-based (non binary) RIA
> infrastructure that is rich enough to finally work that is embedded at
> the OS level for better performance. A dismantling of the browser so
> that networked-based applications can have their own client
> infrastructure. Even flash can't do this. No matter what it is reliant
> on the browser or central.

You've debated this point on WebGUI, but I still think you haven't ever
managed to define "Rich Internet Application" in a way that shows how
Flash, Java, or XUL don't acceptably fit the bill, or why something from
MS will be better in any tangible way besides potential wide adoption.


> > > I mean aren't we reaching a point where we just gotta let the better
> > > app/solution win?
> >
> > What's "better"?
>
> Anything than the mess we have now. W3C solutions are not good enough
> ... IE solutions are too proprietary. OSS solutions are a mess ... So
> now what? Better is as better does, so to speak so lets get over the
> Monopoly phobia and deal w/ teh fact that MS won, we all lost but lets
> move on.

Solutions to _what_? Comparing the W3C, IE, and OSS in one sentence is
apples, bananas, & oranges - the first is a consortium, the second is a
product, and the third is an approach to software development - I don't
think it's valid to say that a solution is too-anything unless it's clear
which problem it isn't solving.


> The other option to all this is that we governmentize the standards of
> software ... Yikes, scary, I know ... but it seems that the Internet is
> the property of media and thus like airwaves and broadcast protocols
> needs to be controlled by the gov't.

The internet is not a thing or a resource, it's an agreement. See WoE
link above.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html