Re: What we might produce

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 08:30, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:

> The charter calls out two different kinds of activities that this group
> might pursue (each likely leading to a Report):
> 1) Where we proactively want to recommend* specifications or technologies
> as a remedy in a defined situation (e.g., social networking, chat, etc.),
> highlighting any gaps
> 2) Where we want to react to a such a proposal made elsewhere (e.g., when
> a competition regulator or other national body selects something)
> To kick off some discussion, here are my initial thoughts --
> The charter contains a few suggestions of initial areas we might explore
> for #1. I don't have any strong sense of where we should start, but it
> should probably be something smaller and more straightforward, so that we
> can get into a working cadence. E.g., taking on social networking to start
> with might be too much.
> When we make recommendations, I've been thinking we'd define things in
> terms of how they serve as a remedy to competition issues in specific,
> well-defined markets -- too often, people paint 'big tech' with very broad
> brushstrokes. However, that will require us to do some work, and also to
> predict (to a degree) how those markets might be characterised. So I'd be
> interested to hear what people think about how much we should relate our
> work to e.g., the various reports that have been produced recently.
> #2 requires us to wait -- I'm not aware of any current, concrete proposals
> for interoperability remedies from regulators. Have I missed any?
> For a potential #3, it might also be helpful for us to work on a document
> that highlights what 'good' Web specifications are horizontally -- i.e., a
> crash course in Web architecture for regulators, and also a guide for our
> more focused work. Ideally much of it would be summaries of and references
> to documentation elsewhere, but in some places we may have to write new
> text. What do folks think - would this be worthwhile?

Crash course on web architecture (say, under 2 pages) sounds pretty valuable

Does something like this already exist?

> Cheers,
> * Note the small 'r' -- this is not a W3C Recommendation
> --
> Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2021 15:17:22 UTC