Re: 'contrary to principles'

On Jul 5, 2013, at 14:07 , "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

>> 4) Open-source.  I think there is an implication that W3C recommendations can be, maybe are, all implemented in open-source.  I think they are implementable there, but actually the W3C doesn't even have a requirement for reference code (unlike, say, ISO), let alone that there be open-source implementation.  (The reference code from other bodies is generally made available free of charge to conforming implementations).  I actually find little evidence that the W3C is an 'open source' body.
> 
> Perhaps there's a lack of evidence because there hasn't yet been a
> case where there was even a question that something could be
> implemented in open-source software, so it just never came up?
> 

I actually think it's not terribly diagnostic.  There are open-source implementations of all sorts of encumbered technologies, for example.  At least some kinds of obfuscation could be implemented fairly readily, but revealing in open-source how obfuscation works might be contrary to its aims.

(I'm not saying I take a position on whether the W3C should have some principles around reference code, or ability to implement in open-source.  I'm not sure it's terribly illuminating for the problem at hand).

I also agree with your conclusion, in your linked email:

> I think these principles are important and the W3C shouldn't
> sacrifice them lightly.  I also think it's preferable to make an
> exception to them for a specific reason than to abandon them
> entirely.
> 


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 21:14:39 UTC