4 ms·

I'm going to say this as politely as I am able: closed standards can eat a big, steaming plate of shit. If it's not open, it doesn't exist. Period.

ksec 4y ago
Sorry Drew, disagree here. But also not surprised. Open Standard does not mean Free Standard. As much as I would want the Final Spec 1.0 to be freely available.
feffe 4y ago
There are many contradicting examples: The original JPEG standard is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 10918) with payed access. MP3 is also an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 13818-3). Perhaps not as relevant today but was once used by basically everyone. Access to the standard is only relevant to the implementer. It's of no consequence to users of a piece of software.
lifthrasiir 4y ago
If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway.
- ddevault 4y ago
  > If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. No. A closed standard is not a standard. > Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway. I think it might have helped, yes.
  - lifthrasiir 4y ago
    > I think it might have helped, yes. Please elaborate.
jonsneyers 4y ago
As an editor of the JPEG XL spec, I fully agree that ISO's paywall policy is bad in many ways. But I wouldn't say it's a "closed" standard. Not any more closed than, say, the C++ standard or the Unicode standard. What makes a standard open is not the price the publisher puts on the copies, imo, but how transparent and open the process is to design and change the standard, and whether it is possible or not to implement and use the standard for free or not. In that regard, I would consider JPEG XL just as open a standard as C++ or Unicode. The HEVC spec is publicly available without paywall, but you cannot freely implement and use this standard since it's a patent encumbered, very non-royalty-free codec. I consider it a closed standard for that reason, and the spec being available for free (but not implementable without paying royalties) does not make much of a difference imo.

ksec 4y ago

Sorry Drew, disagree here. But also not surprised. Open Standard does not mean Free Standard. As much as I would want the Final Spec 1.0 to be freely available.

feffe 4y ago

There are many contradicting examples: The original JPEG standard is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 10918) with payed access. MP3 is also an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 13818-3). Perhaps not as relevant today but was once used by basically everyone. Access to the standard is only relevant to the implementer. It's of no consequence to users of a piece of software.

lifthrasiir 4y ago

If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway.

ddevault 4y ago
> If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. No. A closed standard is not a standard. > Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway. I think it might have helped, yes.
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  > I think it might have helped, yes. Please elaborate.

jonsneyers 4y ago

As an editor of the JPEG XL spec, I fully agree that ISO's paywall policy is bad in many ways. But I wouldn't say it's a "closed" standard. Not any more closed than, say, the C++ standard or the Unicode standard. What makes a standard open is not the price the publisher puts on the copies, imo, but how transparent and open the process is to design and change the standard, and whether it is possible or not to implement and use the standard for free or not. In that regard, I would consider JPEG XL just as open a standard as C++ or Unicode. The HEVC spec is publicly available without paywall, but you cannot freely implement and use this standard since it's a patent encumbered, very non-royalty-free codec. I consider it a closed standard for that reason, and the spec being available for free (but not implementable without paying royalties) does not make much of a difference imo.