W3C's 'Moral Majesty'
ricko at allette.com.au
Sun Sep 12 07:17:04 BST 1999
From: Len Bullard <cbullard at hiwaay.net>
>QED, David. It can be done. You do not have to submit to the
>authority of a single individual in all decisions unless you
>believe you have to. The idea that the W3C represents some
>kind of moral majesty is both repugnant and the proof that
>Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C have failed to produce anything
>resembling a moral solution.
This seems to be turning into "why T.B-L is bad for the WWW"
which is completely against the point I was trying to put forward:
personally, I think the idea of someone (or body) at the top whose
primary job is to unblock logjams is good (indeed, my countries
political constitution is based on this, very successfully).
If the W3C presents itself as a "standards-making" body, then it
must systematically address questions of global fairness to have
credibility. But I think it is not a standards-making body in the
sense that ISO is: I see the W3C as like a big happy elephant that
poops out technology at intervals, and if one has a garden to grow
and a shovel to pick the technology up with, it is a good thing.
In other words, the criticisms of W3C closed procedures etc
are the natural result of the pretense of standards-making.
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev