- From: Christopher R. Maden <crism@exemplary.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:00:31 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
[Matthew Brealey] >crism@exemplary.net (Christopher R. Maden) writes: > >> Privacy allows large competitive companies to join and participate >> without surrendering strategic advantage. > >This I cannot accept, because the WG must, by definition, have more >competitor participation than public discussion forums. The alternative was non-participation from Microsoft and Netscape, just like in the IETF process whose failure (at HTML) necessitated the formation of the W3C. If fully open processes worked here, the W3C never would have been founded. No, I don't like this; I far prefer the IETF way. But I was involved in HTML 2.0's development there, and saw HTML 3.0 fizzle and die, and the simple fact is that the open process was ignored by the most influential players and became irrelevant. Servers are infrastructure. The Open Source community is good at infrastructure. Apache dominates the server world. HTTP is still controlled by the IETF. Browsers are consumer applications. The Open Source community is not very good at consumer applications. Microsoft now dominates the browser world, as Netscape did before them. HTML, XML, CSS, XSL, and PNG are controlled by the W3C. That said, the W3C is much more open than it has to be. Being a member of a WG and having seen other WGs in action, I can tell you that outside feedback *is* actively considered and acted on. But it's frustrating when you can't see the inside, and philosophically upsetting that an open process failed. The only way I can see for this to ever change is if an Open Source browser were to become dominant, and I just don't see that happening within the next five years. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Exemplary Technologies One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 15:00:29 UTC