- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:54:26 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >>> Again, we should not be aiming to restrict the web to only those applications based on a purely FOSS stack. >> >> That is, in fact, precisely what I and several other important >> implementors on this list are aiming for. > > You can aim for whatever you like. I'm saying W3C should not adopt this as its aim because: > 1) It's impossible - the web is whatever users and the companies they patronize decide it is > 2) It's counterproductive to try and restrict innovation, by restricting the available technologies to those decided by a some subset of developers Non-FOSS technologies can't be implemented by some of the major browsers that implement HTML. Nor can they be implemented by some of the OSes that those browsers want to be able to run on. >> Anything less than that is >> insulting to our users that choose to use a purely FOSS stack, which >> we recognize as a valid and legitimate choice. > > Or maybe it's insulting to users to claim that a whole swath of services they enjoy today on the web should not be there ? That's a different set of users. As well, please don't put false words in my mouth. The existing non-FOSS stuff that's more-or-less required in the web stack is a pain we've already accepted and paid for. It would be nice to avoid adding *more* of it. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 23:55:14 UTC