1. 10

  2. 9

    There’s something here, but I don’t think this article does a good job of addressing it. It starts by mentioning RFCs and how there aren’t any new ones. Blame the web! But web techs, at least some of them, are standardized, but not in RFCs. The html5 spec is not an RFC, but it does exist. The article bemoans the death of RSS, but RSS was never an RFC (though atom was).

    It’s not clear from the conclusion exactly what I should standardize. Like if I make a new web app, should I follow existing standards? Or am I expected to somehow get an RFC for my actual application?

    Ultimately, I think more specifics are needed. Twitter is mentioned at the very end, but it’s hard for me to relate it to the earlier remarks about RFCs. Is there supposed to be a Twitter RFC? Is that the problem?

    1. 4

      I read it as meaning that OK, if HTTP has become the de facto application-delivery transport, then when we make our layered-on-HTTP-APIs, we should generalize them as far as we can into RFC-able ‘protocols’ (insofar as e.g. RSS was ever a protocol rather than a schema) and open those up in the name of interoperability. I like that. I don’t see companies wanting to have a USP (/barrier to entry) doing it any time soon though.

      E.g. in the Twitter case, yeah, I think the author means that there should be a generalized 140-char-message-board-with-followers-and-replies-etc ‘protocol’ (HTTP API) which other implementors could use. So these apps become specific implementations of generalised systems/applications in a federat(ed|able) environment.

      Which, again, seems like a really nice way for the world to be. If it weren’t for, you know, people doing things the way people do.

      – Edit - hmm, maybe you covered this already :-) I just think the main reason for the tension in the article is because of the real-world tension between a notional ‘open’ way of doing things and the actual closed way companies tend to do them.

    2. 6

      @tedu addressed the more serious issues with this post, but I’d like to point out something a little less serious: There was already a 2.0 release of the AOL software, about 20 years ago! That made this post title rather confusing.

      (And some of us still remember it. And may have recently junked a box of AOL 2.0 floppy disks.)