W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Exposing the critical ACTUAL style values?

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:28:49 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20021216125949.0183f300(null)>
To: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer)
Cc: www-dom@w3c.org

At 10:50 AM 12/16/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Apologies for a second response, I decided I should say more.

I too will be replying more than once to different portions as I digest
your two responses fully.

[snip]


>>That is how important I think this issue is.  I think without it, the
>>entire W3C effort will be undermined, because where the applications go, so
>>goes the market share.
>>  
>>
>I agree personally that  the W3C efforts to make content and 
>applications that can be viewed by any browser is being undermined in a 
>variety of ways.
>
>Unfortunately, work done at W3C is determined by the interests of those 
>who pay the membership fees and show up at the working group meetings, 


We also appreciate every member who is funding the valueable work of W3C.
I am not a paying member, but am seriously considering becoming one if I
feel we can get a good value for our investment (being a small company we
don't part with $6000 per year without some rationalization).

Off topic slightly on the issue of funding proportions, I just note that
$6000 as % of typical small company revenues (such as us) is at least 2
orders of magnitude greater than $60,000 to the companies with greater than
$50 million in revenues (per the published membership fee structure at
W3C.org).  No comment needed, just something to ponder, in terms of who is
able to influence the W3C and whether that best reflects the democratic
advancement of the art.  Perhaps that is what you meant by "Unfortunately".

Do not want to get you in any trouble, so I will reiterate that I am sure
everyone appreciates the members who are paying $60,000 per year to fund
the valuable work W3C has done to date.  We would not toss the baby with
the bath water.  I have a pragmatic slant.


>>Specifically what do you need??
>>  
>>
>A significantly-larger number of W3C Members (or members joined together 
>by some organization or created group with a web visibility) committing 
>resources.  


[snip]


>  How about representatives of three 
>browser companies and three experienced application vendors and an 
>agreed-upon forum as a magic starting point?


I am advocating that the initial thrust is to create cross-platform
applications using W3C standards by leveraging a browser engine.
Distribution (marketshare) of the browser is not as big of an issue, as it
can be distributed as a runtime with the applications.  Thus I wonder if
support from one browser vendor and 3+ experience application vendors would
be reasonable??  Application vendors are much more abundant than browser
vendors.

If so, then that is also why I am advocating that the spec try to leverage
as much as possible the existing DOM (and possibly CSS but you have good
points against that I need to respond to), such that it would be less
probable for initially unterested browser vendors to have implementation
issues when they eventually implement.

In my mind, W3C application framework is going to happen someday, even if
W3C is undermined in the interim.  My goal (after programming for 19 years)
is to avoid the pain of having to recode several more times, if the we
first have to go thru another round of proprietary application frameworks.
I am getting a little bit old already (37) :-)

I have thought about GTK, etc, and I think the elegance of the Web
framework is the future.

-Shelby Moore
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 14:30:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:56 GMT