[whatwg] about rich internat applications

[Didier PH Martin]

Hi Ian,

> You tell me. HTML is "open"; can HTML be the source of a sound business
> model?


:-) No I am not saying such thing. You don't sell HTML component to be
reused by other providers. Most of the current web application are server
centric and the rich client application market closer to starvation than
growth.

I am only saying that in order to create a component market, the behavior
(i.e. the code) could or not be accessible. Even if written in EcmaScript
the vendor may decide or not to give access to the source. This could be the
basis for a business model as we already observed in the past. This at least
leaves the choice of a business model

a) Open source: free code, they charge for the service
b) Open source: paid code, the component is delivered as a package
c) Closed source: paid code, the component is delivered as a package
d) other business model people may envision.


> 
> 
> > What is more important, get access to lousy code or get access to a
> > components and a vendor having interests to keep us as customers?
> 
> The former. Or more to the point, freedom. The freedom to use the markup,
> for any purpose. The freedom to study how the markup works, and adapt it
> to your needs. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
> neighbor. The freedom to improve the markup, and release your improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
> 
> Freedom is way more important than "vendors" and "customers". At least to
> me. (As far as allowed by local laws, of course.)
> 

Freedom is also the choice of how you will package your code: closed or
open. You have then the freedom to choose your business model and the
customers have the freedom to choose their component providers. To force to
a single model is not freedom. I understand your noble cause, but freedom is
also the freedom to choose your business model. An intelligent architecture
provides such freedom.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin