for whatever it's worth:
http://osflash.org/
http://osflash.org/mtasc
are also useful
simon wrote:
don't know if this has already been discussed here, but:
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hey,
I never said anything about being unhappy with open standards,
please do
not implicitly misquote me like that:)
What I said was that as far as possible things should be open but that
that should not be the only value judgement that is made. I also said
positive and fluffy things about how nice it would be if everyone
could
access everything and that that was ideally how things should be. I
don't think the BBC *have* said
"we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
permit their users access to our content".
and I don't think that is what I am defending. I am defending the
right
to investigate whether that particular bit of software is useful.
As I
would (and have in the past) for open source software.
I think that it woud have been good to have had a discussion on
what Air
can and can't do. It would have been fantastic to have had a
discussion
about open source alternatives that can do the same job or a better
job. It would have been useful to talk about things that aren't the
same but a bit like it or find out about some open source projects
that
haven't produced anything useful so far but that might be good to keep
an eye out for. It would have been interesting to know whether, if a
piece of content was made available via Air or via something more
open,
what people's opinions would be about who would use which and why. It
would be interesting to know what people like the osflash.org
<http://osflash.org> guys think
of all this (I don't know if any of you are on this list?).
This is not a forum that exists simply for the purpose of telling the
BBC that it is Wrong.
It would have been good to talk.
Alia
Andy wrote:
> On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>> Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC
required that
>> the public could use only non-proprietary software to access
any of its
>> work?
>>
>
> I doubt that it what Dave is saying.
> It should make it's content available via a standard way (see:
> http://www.ietf.org , http://www.w3c.org , http://www.iso.org ).
> That way it can be viewed in both proprietary and Open Source
> software. See everyone's happy.
>
> And if you are unhappy using Open Standards then you can't use HTTP,
> or TCP/IP for that matter so how are you going to access the BBC
> website in the first place?
>
>
>> It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about
>> the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to
enforce
>> this.
>>
>
> No one is asking the BBC to enforce ANYTHING. The entire
opposite, we
> are asking the BBC to allow *any* software to be used.
>
>
>> I wouldn't be
>> happy deciding what people should care about and enforcing it.
>>
>
> That's what the BBC is doing and you have been defending. It is
saying
> "we believe Adobe's software is what everyone should use so we only
> permit their users access to our content".
>
> Andy
>
>
>
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>
discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
