- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:55:16 -0700
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Andreas Kuckartz'" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, <public-html-admin@w3.org>, <public-html-media@w3.org>, <jeff@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > That's a lot of words for just trying to state a variant of "you're > intolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance". > Actually Tab, not exactly. I am suggesting that if the web is to truly remain Open, *anyone* can contribute a standard to the larger stack, and that no one group or philosophy should set themselves up as gatekeepers, which is the net effect of what the EFF and others appear to be attempting to do. If you believe my first point, then I further suggest that working on those standards at the W3C is far preferable to having those same standards developed elsewhere (whether at another standards body, or behind closed doors), for the reasons I stated. Florian Bösch wrote: > > John, I recommend you actually read what the EFF wrote. They tell it > more succintcly then I do. Florian, trust me, I have read their press release, and I understand what they are saying. They have not convinced me. It really comes down to their belief that it has to be done their way, that all other ways are somehow "evil" and harmful to the web ecosystem, and that somehow stopping this work at the W3C will "solve the problem", that the W3C should operate as FOSS operates. They haven't really brought forward any proof of their assertions (as they are speaking of future events), they keep calling the EME DRM (even though the W3C have gone to great length to keep those topics separate, and to clearly articulate the line between the 2) and so it boils down to their spin, and their philosophy alone. I don't buy it - that the web must be crafted in their vision of how it should be, and that any other vision is BAD. JF
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:55:56 UTC