Web-Agency requirements

In order to please a few people :-), i am posting here a few comments
concerning the web-agency requirements document
(http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements).
I've seen from the list archive that there has always been answers and i
propably haven't read all of them, so forgive me if  some of my comments
have already been made.

1. About "open" standards
Is it necessary to emphasize that much on the *open* side of the standards ?
Isn't "standards" by itself self-explanatory ? I understand that it's all
about distinguishing vendor standards and de facto standards from free
standards but who would really dare to call HTML a la Microsoft a true
standard ? Nobody would in my opinion and developpers are not that stupid.

I think that more than the openness of standards, one should insit on the
standards period, and the standards, concerning Xnet technologies, are those
from the W3C : HTML, XHTML, etc. At that point one can point out that they
are also open standards, which means not being tied-up to a specific
software vendor, global adoptions by the software community and the vendors
(which all take part to the standardization process), etc.

2. About the client of the web-agency
Since it's a document aimed at people managing external people from service
companies, it's extremely important, i think, to emphasize on the fact that
relying on standards (by the way, why ommitting ecmascript and the DOM -
anyway, are we priviledging accessibility or standards...) means easier
takeover of the developments by the client and easier modifications in the
future if necessary. 
It's much more easier to reverseenginneer a development that is both clean
and developped following clear and well-established rules based on public
specifications than bloatware. Consequently, you're not dependent on your
supplier in case of future evolutions.

3. About web-agency themselves
Should notions such as XML or XQL appear in a document aimed at framing a
web-agency ? HTML, yes, CSS, yes, the rest no. Or we're talking about a
broader article that concerns all new technologies project managers : using
XML doesn't automatically mean doing Web. I would not have a "webization of
IBM mainframe legacy" project realized by a "web-agency" :-)

4. About javascript 
There is no mention of Ecmascript nor DOM. Once again, i feel like
undergoing some WAI dictatorship. And this is truly harmful because i think
one of the biggest concerns of industrial web developments actually is
javascript. And who really cares about full-compliant XHTML when it comes
with 500 lines of ununderstandable and inmaintenable javascript ?

In fact, rather than ignoring it, i think it is really important to point
out what good javascript should be (while noticing than javascript is not a
goal by itself and that a well realized web site should be functionnal even
if javascript is off).

Conclusion : positionning of the document
But more than that, i find the positionning of the article a bit awkward : i
can't really figure out who it is meant for... it's talking about
web-agencies, but it's also talking about XQL or XML-Schema which is, in my
opinion, off-topic; it sings the praises of standards but they are only seen
through the eye of the WAI. I would have prefered a true article about the
WAG, their interest and the ways of following their requirements, rather
than an article that relies on the industrial interests of standards and
just uses them to do WAI lobbying. 

Voilà

Regards

laurent