On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > 2012/3/5 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > >> Precisely. We don't need to "burn down the town" (to use your words); > >> we just need to maintain the status quo until copyright owners are > >> willing to come to the table with more reasonable expectations and use > >> the technology we're already providing them. > > > > The reasonableness of content owner expectations is not an issue we can > > determine here. If you wish to go off and create a restrictive W3C > > doppleganger, then feel free to do so. In the mean time, the W3C members > > will choose what makes sense for the majority as opposed to a stentorian > > minority. > > I notice that you used the term "W3C members" rather than the more > usual terms "implementors", "UAs", or "browser vendors". Are you > under the mistaken impression that buying a W3C membership grants the > ability to control what goes into browsers? > No. Are you under the mistaken impression that a minority of browser implementors can dictate what the market needs or can use?
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 03:42:00 UTC