W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal

From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:02:27 +1000
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3BBCA431.10405.1F1360E@localhost>


Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> On October 4, 2001 08:45 am, Jason Antony wrote:
> >
> > Kindly add anything I may have missed, or any errors.
> 
> Well, none of the following are concerned with the content of the document
> on the table, but:
> 
>    - Extend the public review period by longer than 11 days.  Two months
>      would be more appropriate, considering that the original comment
>      period was largely wasted because of inadequate public notification.

Yep, and get even more votes against RAND :-) To date, we haven't received 
an adequate explanation from W3C why an issue of such magnitude garnered no 
attention from the media, or important web community figures until it was 
almost too late.

If it weren't for Adam Warner's submission to Slashdot, I myself would've 
been in the dark. And that is strange, considering I frequent the W3C site 
often [looking for SW/standards updates, plus I do Mozilla nightly testing -
 the current CSS homepage puts Moz into a coma].

Why? What went wrong? Was the blurb worded in such an obfuscatory manner 
that RAND, and its implications, were well hidden to the casual visitor? 
Was the term even mentioned?

Or were ulterior motives and vested interests guiding the game?

The W3C needs to seriously revise its news dissemination strategy.


>    - Retract the SVG 1.0 Recommendation, since it incorporates patented
>      elements that rely on a policy not in effect at the time the
>      recommendation was accepted.

Agreed. I for one will not be implementing this in any of my webpages until 
an alternative solution is found, or the current one cleared of all 
restrictions by the patent holders. I say this as I believe the offending 
patents are too broad for a new solution that circumvents them.


>    - Admit individuals and nonprofit organizations to W3C membership with
>      reasonable fees and full membership rights.
> 
>    - Deprecate the use of members-only documentation.

This is W3C's Achilles' Heel. While we all acknowledge it's a vendor 
consortium, the very nature of its goals demands that all players be 
recognised and given equal status. In particular, free/ open source 
developers and organisations should be granted access. This helps level the 
playing field and bring in some genuine innovation - in the real sense of 
the word.

It would be very fair if they were granted free membership, considering all 
they have done to make the web what it is today. Nor are they about 
profits. They code for the love and art of it.

Also - kindly get rid of the members-only areas. It offends me that a 
consortium charged with developing open standards for the global web has 
areas the public can't access. Again, the issue boils down to 
accountability and credibility.

Thanks and regards
Jason
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 04:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:41 GMT