[backstage] Re: Sharing Code
Surely, it's more political or philosophical than merely sharing php code.. the fact is that after ten years or more there's still not a single successful web authoring application that's publishes accessible validated code and is used by the public. (in part which explains the rise of blogging) The reasons are well known, for example, experts are more easily tied into upgrades, developers attached to feature creep, etc Similarly much of web2.0 is server based which significantly reduces the possibilities for sharing or engaging the public in authoring. cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 1 Nov 2006, at 12:13, Ian Forrester wrote: Not to be a party-pooper but one thing that characterised my initial impression of backstage was disappointment at the number of things people were doing that were NOT open source, especially from some of the more prolific authors here. I think there is certainly something very different about the backstage development community compared to other developer networks. Not a lot of code does get shared, yes I agree. But I don't believe the reason is because people don't care. Maybe the time just hasn't come up yet or even people feel Backstage isn't the place to get really into the code? Yet, I see these little widgets mash-ups go by, cool 'n all ... but no code, so who cares? A shame! (And soo last millennium). The widget competition comes at a very interesting point in there conception. People are sitting up and thinking about what's actually possible with widgets and where there path into the future goes. So last millennium I would certainly disagree. There's also nothing stopping people from sharing the code of the widgets. Ideally when we first wrote the competition, we were going to post up the entries straight away, so everyone could discuss and learn from each other. But with the prizes and contest element to it all, it didn't seem feasible. We've learned from that, and you will found out on Monday 6th what were planning next. I certainly feel the next thing will make people collaborate more and who knows what might happen. But on a side point. I'm not saying collaboration isn't happening! I've seen examples where someone will take some rough and barely ready data source and wrap it up in something much more understandable. Then someone will write a prototype off that. This may not be the model your after? But I think the game has changed, this is the modern eco-system of development. I'm really happy to discuss this more if people are happy to? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] Re: Sharing Code
the fact is that after ten years or more there's still not a single successful web authoring application that's publishes accessible validated code I'm not sure that this is fault of the application - all your major desktop apps, as well as most (mainly open source) CMSes will happily produce very nice code for you. However users tend to modify the templates (as any decent CMS/CPS/whatever uses), and their focus is on the visual appearance rather than usable it is in a screenreader. Similarly much of web2.0 is server based which significantly reduces the possibilities for sharing or engaging the public in authoring. I disagree. Web 2.0, and whatever people's interpretations of this flimsy collection of technologies and concepts is, in my view invariably shows a shift to client-side code. At least it is at the moment. This takes the form of javascript for the use of XMLHTTPRequest or perhaps the wide variety of client software for RSS reading. Any software on the server-side [I'm gritting my teeth saying this next 5 words] in a web 2.0 world is just allowing the data to be opened up and standardised through an API. All in my humble opinion, of course, and not the views of the BBC or anything like that :-) J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here - Ray Bradbury - 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/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sharing Code
Jason, which web2.0 apis are you proposing that produce accessible or even validating code? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 1 Nov 2006, at 16:29, Jason Cartwright wrote: the fact is that after ten years or more there's still not a single successful web authoring application that's publishes accessible validated code I'm not sure that this is fault of the application - all your major desktop apps, as well as most (mainly open source) CMSes will happily produce very nice code for you. However users tend to modify the templates (as any decent CMS/CPS/whatever uses), and their focus is on the visual appearance rather than usable it is in a screenreader. Similarly much of web2.0 is server based which significantly reduces the possibilities for sharing or engaging the public in authoring. I disagree. Web 2.0, and whatever people's interpretations of this flimsy collection of technologies and concepts is, in my view invariably shows a shift to client-side code. At least it is at the moment. This takes the form of javascript for the use of XMLHTTPRequest or perhaps the wide variety of client software for RSS reading. Any software on the server-side [I'm gritting my teeth saying this next 5 words] in a web 2.0 world is just allowing the data to be opened up and standardised through an API. All in my humble opinion, of course, and not the views of the BBC or anything like that :-) J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here - Ray Bradbury - 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/ - 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/
Re: [backstage] Re: Sharing Code
Jason, [Apologies if this is duplicated, but GMail is not indicating clearly whether this is making it to the list or not. :( ] I disagree. Web 2.0, and whatever people's interpretations of this flimsy collection of technologies and concepts is, in my view invariably shows a shift to client-side code. At least it is at the moment. This takes the form of javascript for the use of XMLHTTPRequest or perhaps the wide variety of client software for RSS reading. Any software on the server-side [I'm gritting my teeth saying this next 5 words] in a web 2.0 world is just allowing the data to be opened up and standardised through an API. Except the fact that you can't do cross-domain posting seriously limits the ability to do client-side processing independently of a server, and having to introduce new servers for each new 'mashups' simply doesn't scale [1]. XForms goes some ways towards solving this, but obviously the big problem is within browsers. It's a tricky one! Regards, Mark [1] http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2006/01/web-20-copernicus-and-spartacus-moving.html -- Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/ - 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/
