- From: M. Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 01:00:30 -0800 (PST)
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Yaron Goland wrote: > The IETF is not a social engineering organization ... I went to the W3 home page <http://www.w3.org/> for other reasons today and found three major areas of research listed there: 'User Interface', 'Technology and Society', and 'Architecture'. Under 'Technology and Society' was a subheading for 'Privacy and Demographics' (the topic we have been primarily arguing). Does that make the W3C a "social engineering organization"? Isn't Microsoft a W3C member? If those topics -- privacy, demographics, and society, not to mention user interface -- are germane to the W3C's work, why are they suddenly irrelevant and out of scope for the HTTP-wg? Are you saying we can't discuss them simply because we haven't paid the W3C's membership fee? > ... and its purpose is not for users to "forcefully indicate their > preferences to UA vendors." The IETF has, through its open admission policies, made itself a forum for any interested party to express an opinion and argue a position. This is true for the representative from DoubleClick just as much as it is true for me or any other user or implementor out there. If the position is persuasive and the group is persuaded (and working implementations can be produced), then the standard can be modified to the group's wishes. This is not a matter of forcing any vendor to do anything. Instead, it is an opportunity for a a standards document to benefit from public review and comment. If you or your company don't like the product of that review, the worst we can do to you is call you "non-compliant." No other force is available for exercise. > I figure I should just relax and let it ride. After all, the reality of > the spec was decided before the last call was ever taken. Oh, PLEASE. I personally made several invitations to Microsoft for representatives to attend the state-management subgroup, and the topic was a matter of open debate on www-talk and http-wg for literally _YEARS_ before the last call without the slightest comment from Microsoft. The subgroup was announced on the http-wg list and all interested parties were invited. Netscape managed to send not one but _two_ representatives to the group (Lou Montulli and Ari Luotonen). If you or anyone else at your company feels that all decisions were made before last call, you could have SHOWN UP for the discussion and participated, which is _how the decisions get made_. Don't whine about abrogation of process unless you are ready to produce an alternative document and defend it under the same public review the current draft is receiving. M. Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 02:18:10 UTC