It is like saying my MUD is a web app. A MUD is a service accessible with a telnet client and usually accessed by special "MUD clients" as opposed to plain tel

It is like saying my MUD is a web app. A MUD is a service accessible with a telnet client and usually accessed by special "MUD clients" as opposed to plain telnet; these clients parse, record, and manipulate MUD data. How loose is this definition? The way phone networks are stitched together today, you could call the phone operation a web app, too. In some places, I have found the Skype app over 3G to have higher quality than my AT&T connection via my iPhone. The only difference between the two appears to be which application I use. As far as I know, nobody calls any mobile app a web app unless it was obviously a direct link to some webpage taken directly from a browser. I was once hired to help a company transfer financial data over their modem/fax lines. The data is linkable, mixable, and transfers between systems. Was that a web app? Is the File Explorer, when it views files on a remote Windows share, a web app, even if I am connected by a null cable between two systems? More accurately, I think you are describing any application connected to a network, as opposed to what we traditionally call "an app that runs on the web". I am not convinced that the Dark Mists MUD gets "web app" status, even if I redirect a port through apache to the MUD server. I concede the point, though, if we are talking about providing clients other than browsers to users. My original post contradicts the idea that we should write fancy apps in the browser. I have no problem with conjuring a new kind of protocol that runs over our network and provides an application feel (for example, X). It is, IMHO, silly to break features in the real app people use (the browser). If you are referring to something completely different, then I am off topic.