this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
136 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

423 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There are a couple I have in mind. Like many techies, I am a huge fan of RSS for content distribution and XMPP for federated communication.

The really niche one I like is S-expressions as a data format and configuration in place of json, yaml, toml, etc.

I am a big fan of Plaintext formats, although I wish markdown had a few more features like tables.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BB_C@programming.dev 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using "publicly available and sharable" instead (maybe there is a better name for it).

ISO standards for example are technically "open". But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple "open" standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans ^[archived]^ on top.

IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.

[–] ReversalHatchery 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

why do we call standards open when they require people to pay for access to the documents? to me that does not sound open at all

[–] BB_C@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago

Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the "standard" itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.

There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, ..etc involved.

Anyway, we can't backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes "open" on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

It's a historical quirk of the industry. This stuff came around before Open Source Software and the OSI definition was ever a thing.

10BASE5 ethernet was an open standard from the IEEE. If you were implementing it, you were almost certainly an engineer at a hardware manufacturing company that made NICs or hubs or something. If it was $1,000 to purchase the standard, that's OK, your company buys that as the cost of entering the market. This stuff was well out of reach of amateurs at the time, anyway.

It wasn't like, say, DECnet, which began as a DEC project for use only in their own systems (but later did open up).

And then you have things like "The Open Group", which controls X11 and the Unix trademark. They are not particularly open by today's standards, but they were at the time.