why distinctions within XHTML?

[Erik James Freed]

As I read and listen to more and more of these w3c versus the masses
battles, I have to confess that the
missing element is the argument for *not* providing greater
exposure/accountability. Is it: Exposure of
proprietary information? Cost? Time? Quality? Personal attacks? Perhaps
these concerns/realities could be
overcome? They certainly seem to be worth substantive attention on the part
of all concerned. Surely the W3
cannot afford to not change in response to what appears to be widespread
(and growing!) agreement that there
is a problem?

good luck to us all!

erik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk [mailto:owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
> David Brownell
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 8:53 AM
> To: Ann Navarro
> Cc: XML-Dev Mailing list
> Subject: Re: why distinctions within XHTML?
>
>
> Ann Navarro wrote:
> >
> > At 12:08 AM 8/31/99 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > >Ann Navarro wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Part of the problem here is what is and what isn't
> confidential discussions
> > >> in a WG. If this were a W3C-internal list, I could be more
> forthcoming ...
> > >
> > >And of course, that's the cause of a lot of the problems.
> > >
> > >The more I watch things at W3C, the more I feel that the Web should be
> > >driven instead by a standards organization with public accountability.
> > >Being accountable to vendors who have vested interests in bloatware (as
> > >key parts of new barriers to entry) isn't the right model.
> >
> > Take a look at the membership list:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
> >
> > While there are certainly the large industry players on there,
> there's lots
> > of little guys
>
> I didn't say "big" vendors -- you did.  Smaller vendors (including
> "little guys" whose incomes are a function of taming complexity) can
> have interests in creating bloatware too.
>
> The folk who do _not_ have vested interests in bloated software are
> typically represented by checks and balances in the standards-making
> process.  But W3C, unlike other groups (such as the IETF, IEEE, ANSI)
> doesn't have any effective checks on such biases.
>
>
> >	 -- and indeed my own constituency (the HTML Writers Guild),
> > effectively represents 100,000 individual little guys. We're not
> > "accountable to vendors....". We act on our own behalf, and
> have the same
> > power as any other participant. Our Microsoft participant
> doesn't get his
> > way any more than anyone else does :)
>
> And I didn't mention Microsoft, either.  It's evident that they're
> a vendor with the proven desire and capability to create bloatware,
> but they're not in it alone.
>
> One doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to identify real flaws
> in how the W3C does its business.  As a steward of an international
> resource, it should be as accountable to customers as to vendors.
>
> - Dave
>
> 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/ and on
> CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
> 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)