W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: Why is the W3c so 'closed'?

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 07:02:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19991126150219.16637.rocketmail@web903.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@exemplary.net>
wrote:
> >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.
Syllogism:
1. MS-Dos 4 sucked and was buggy and no-one used it
2. MS-Dos 4 was produced by a closed process.
Conclusion:
Closed processes suck.

Syllogism:
1. HTML 3.0 was too big and no-one used it.
2. HTML 3.0 was produced by an open process.
Conclusion:
Open processes suck.

Perhaps someone would like to point out the major
logical error?!

> Browsers are consumer applications.  
Lucky really.
Only consumers (because they are ignorant) would
tolerate the stuff that they are pushed.



=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 10:02:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT