W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Scope of W3C recommendations; core issue for polyglot & DRM

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:28:06 -0500
Message-Id: <B2266313-177D-4AB7-9ED9-5E3DA55B7FE0@la-grange.net>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Anne,

Le 28 janv. 2013 à 11:34, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> I think whenever we do that (e.g. SVG, SMIL, TTML) we find that the technology we ended up with for a closed ecosystem either needs changing or is not appropriate at all for wide deployment on the web.

Yes. Technologies developed with a precise set of constraints, not taking into account the nature of the Web (openness, legacy deployment, error recovery, etc), have a tendency to create conflicts or collapse.

On the other hand, we learned a lot from our previous failures and not sure we could have known them in advance. 

> I would therefore be hesitant to advocate such an approach.


That's a position, but that would be more interesting to know what approach you recommend ;)

The question of Larry was:
> Is it OK for W3C to publish a FPWD/Recommendation track document which has limited scope of applicability, as long as there are at least _some_ proponents in the W3C community?


I think the term Recommendation is confusing into the sentence. I guess Larry meant: A FPWD (first public Working draft) on the recommendation track. 

I would rephrase as:

     Is it OK for W3C to publish a draft 
     document which has limited scope of 
     applicability, as long as there are 
     at least _some_ proponents in the W3C 
     community?

I think we have many venues for this, including the W3C community groups. I would have no issue with people experimenting. The cost of WGs can be very high. So developping a technology that would be valuable for certain businesses but not necessary for the Web as large is a difficult choice. An interesting exercise that could be done is for each participants of the TAG to draw "in secret" what they consider being the Core Web technologies, then to compare each participant Web stack. That could help identify the frictions and then make it easier to focus on the common set. 


-- 
Karl Dubost, a Web opener to hire
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 23:28:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 23:28:12 GMT