That's a good point, Rami. But if you'd ask me, I'd describe (technically) the "DHTML" runtime as an Open Web runtime. The idea of open web is to build applications running in browsers and on devices using a collection of open standards available. Check the Mozilla "Demos of open web technologies" page: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Demos_of_open_web_technologies
The technologies or standards use to build these demos include HTML5, CSS3, SVG, HTML canvas, Web Workers, etc. Isn't the DHTML runtime exactly that? A runtime utilizing a collection of open standards to enable the development of advanced browser based applications? I'm convinced that the DHTML/HTML5 runtime - within a year - will use quite a few features which are not part of the HMTL standard. SVG for div clipping and masking, advanced text layout, etc. But if you are looking for an official definition of open web technologies, check the definition on this page create by the Open Web folks: http://groups.google.com/group/openweb-group/web/openweb-org-proposal What is an Open Web technology? An Open Web technology has a specification, an open source implementation, or was a defacto technology that was embraced by the larger open web (such as innerHTML or the HTML 5 Drag and Drop model from Internet Explorer originally). A specification can be anything from a detailed blog post or community document (such as the original blogging autodiscovery spec or the Microformats wiki) all the way to a full-blown, 'classic' specification from the W3C or ECMA. In other words, we can say that a technology is open when it meets the following characteristics: + Open specification (royalty & patent free) providing the freedom to implement + Has one or more open source reference implementation(s) + Is supported by more than one vendor or provider + Public involvement in evolution of the spec + Having a technology supported by multiple, possibly competitive, providers is a key charateristic of a truly open technology. SVG, Canvas, HTML, and JavaScript are all great examples. + How will we judge what technologies to include? Ask the following questions; if any are yes then suitable for site: + Is this an Open Web technology (using definition above)? Examples include HTML, JavaScript, CSS, SVG, etc. + Is this a 'shim' technology present and suitable to use when an Open Web technology is not available? Examples include VML (Vector Markup Language), Microsoft Behaviors, Flash, etc. The site will not be an exhaustive reference work for these technologies, but rather will document them sufficiently to be used in shim situations or to get the job done (i.e. we would document Flash/JS interaction but would not have an ActionScript 3 reference, or we would have an intro to Microsoft Behaviors and how they are necessary in some conditions such as PNG transparency but would not recommend them for general use if alternatives are available). Is this a single-vendor but web-focused experimental technology either in open source or under a specification, such as Webkit's CSS Animations, Google's O3D technology, or Microsofts Web Slices? These can be present but should be clearly marked as either experimental and/or single-vendor On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Rami Ojares <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we apply the "Separation of Concerns" pattern? > That is keeping technical (=informative) and marketing (=manipulative) > communication apart. > Or have these two uses collapsed together in the whole of IT-world? > +1 for awesomeness ... that word was recently translated to finnish and used > as a trendy word ;-) > It seems evolution of languages is getting more and more connected. > > Warning: I am soon going to file a bug in Jira about flash and url encoding > > - rami > > 11.8.2010 1:39, Max Carlson kirjoitti: >> >> +1 for html5 - I think it will be here for at least a year. We could just >> label everything 'awesomeness' - that would be pretty funny as a runtime >> radio button! >> >> I still think ria is most descriptive but it feels like it's more >> associated with Flash. >> >> As for marketing, we need to call out our strengths, which include html5, >> css3, rtl, mixins - and fresh new components! >> >> On Aug 10, 2010, at 4:26 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> To me, HTML5 is just the latest hip term and does not really describe the >>> platform. HTML5 specifies new markup and scripting API's, but does not >>> specify the scripting language or CSS version does it? >>> >>> On 2010-08-10, at 17:14, Sarah Allen wrote: >>> >>>> Anything we pick will be stale in a few years... I vote for HTML5 :) >>>> >>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:44 PM, P T Withington wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2010-08-10, at 16:32, Raju Bitter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As an Adobe expert said: OL DHTML is the closest you can get to Flash >>>>>> without using Flash, but many people don't know that fact. To me, >>>>>> DHTML sounds old, ugly and out-dated. >>>>> >>>>> Can we get that "on the record"? >>>>> >>>>> My only fear with switching to HTML5 is that that will be stale in a >>>>> few years too. >>>>> >>>>> We want a term that means just what your Adobe guy said: Flash without >>>>> Flash. What do the other popular frameworks like JQuery call themselves? >>>>> Are they still saying AJAX? Can we invent a new term that conveys what >>>>> is >>>>> special about OL, and own that term, so it can't go stale? >>>> >>> >>> > >
