- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:16:58 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-interop-remedies@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+-gf4-EoEb-qjgp2kabzRvi4s+PLc0PyWMeM149Ux0uw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 08:30, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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 https://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2021 15:17:22 UTC