Microsoft's responce to article

Didier PH Martin martind at
Mon Jan 17 17:56:36 GMT 2000

Hi Ann,

Ann said:
What are you trying to get at? That 6000 members is somehow preferable to
There's certainly no cap on W3C membership, they're actively recruiting.

But if you think that with 6000 member organizations at a lower membership
fee that you'll somehow get better results (with the same budget for
staffing and management), I think you'd be disappointed.

Again, I've managed our membership to the W3C starting on the most
shoe-string of budgets, so "it's too expensive" really rings hollow here.
You either commit to it, or you don't.

Didier reply:
>From a business point of view, probably 380 members is more manageable than
6000. Especially if you get about the same revenue from both numbers.
>From the representation point of view of an industry or of a user base of
more than 100 millions (is it that huge?) 380 is probably insufficient.

So, Does W3C wants to be more representative or more manageable? That is the

Didier PH Martin
Email: martind at
Conferences: Web New York (
Book to come soon: XML Pro published by Wrox Press

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list