Open Standards Processes

[Frank Boumphrey]

>Anyone interested in setting up a corporation whose only purpose is to join
>the W3C and "hire" interested individuals for a reasonable fee? (evil :-).


Now there's a thought. Anyone interested?(I'm serious)!!

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Gertner <matthew at praxis.cz>
To: xml-dev at ic.ac.uk <xml-dev at ic.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Open Standards Processes


>Simon,
>
>Your argument is convincing, but doesn't explain why open access is not
>given to works-in-progress for consultation by interested parties (i.e.
>read-only access). I appreciate the need of the W3C to avoid involving too
>many chefs in cooking up its standards, for exactly the reasons you
mention.
>I also appreciate the need of the organization to finance its activities.
>However, the pricing scheme is pretty unfair. A company with $49 million in
>revenue can join as an affiliate member for about 0.01% of revenues (and
the
>fee for full membership is pretty insignificant for the Microsofts and IBMs
>of the world), whereas for, say, a small Web startup in Prague the
affiliate
>membership fee represents a few month's salary for the average programmer
>(life is cheap out here...).
>
>Anyone interested in setting up a corporation whose only purpose is to join
>the W3C and "hire" interested individuals for a reasonable fee? (evil :-).
>
>Matthew
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon St.Laurent <SimonStL at classic.msn.com>
>To: xml-dev at ic.ac.uk <xml-dev at ic.ac.uk>
>Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 3:26 PM
>Subject: RE: Open Standards Processes (WAS Re: Nesting XML based languages
>and scripting languages)
>
>
>>Len Bullard suggested:
>>
>>>o  All drafts posted to the web at all times.  Anyone can
>>>   read and anyone can contribute.  Only a few people edit
>>>   and ISO makes the rules for these people, not the consortia.
>>>   Ensures openness and "a level playing field".
>>
>>Frank Boumphrey added:
>>
>>>What about us poor authors!! We have to write "knowledgeably" about a
>>>subject that doesn't even exist. Our books usually appear at about the
>same
>>>time as a spec which invalidates every thing we have written!!
>>
>>While I sympathize with everyone's impatience, and have lived Frank's
'poor
>>authors' issue repeatedly, I would hesitate to change the XML process
>>dramatically at this point.  The discussions on this list in the past few
>days
>>about 'semantics' alone have shown once again the kinds of rocks on which
>this
>>kind of project may founder if it opens up too widely.  XML-Dev would
>probably
>>be a much louder list than it is if people felt their comments would have
a
>>direct impact on the standard, instead of the informal listening that (I
>>think) does go on here.  I'm not sure all of that loud would be useful or
>>productive.
>
>
>
>xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
>Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
>To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
>(un)subscribe xml-dev
>To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following
message;
>subscribe xml-dev-digest
>List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
>
>


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)