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]> 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 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]> 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 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/ >
