- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:49:41 +0100 (BST)
- To: marduk <marduk@gte.net>
- cc: WWW-HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, marduk wrote: > > MZ writes: > > I completely disagree. Personally I think the 3.0 proposal was bloated > > with more worthless crap that 3.2 or 4.0. > > I just joined this list, so I don't knwo whther this has been discussed > before, but I see the 4.0 proposal as doing exactly what I felt the 3.2 > proposal did, mainly to keep up with what has already been implemented by > Netscape and Microsoft and generally already accepted as "standard". The only thing I would disagree with here is the notion that implementing what Netscape and Microsoft want is in any sense keeping up. Keeping up implies with something worthwhile. > > It seems to me, that the W3C has been playing catch up for some time and > mostly to agree with what is already being used en mass. Unfortunately > the W3C has, in my opinion, lost most of it's power to the top 2 and it's > unfortunate because I believe we are now really seeing a fragmentation in > the HTML community. > > Let's face it. There is not much 'openness' in this platform anymore. > The big two implement what their customers want (i.e. what sells) and we > accept it without much discussion. Sounds pretty closed to me. The whole problem is that Netscape and Microsoft control W3C because they pay money to it and users (who largely have no money) have lost any chance of influencing developments. Thats why I feel W3C has lost all credibility as a standards body. Trouble is is there anything else. At least Governments have some kind of control over ISO. Dave Carter
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 1997 11:49:49 UTC