Re: Trust

>>>>> "MW" == Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes:

    MW> We proposed it in W3C for the same reasons any proposes anything
    MW> in W3C - because an open standardization process produces better
    MW> results - including better interoperability - than a closed
    MW> one. It's perplexing to find proponents of open standards
    MW> arguing that something should be standardized behind closed
    MW> doors instead.

    MW> Personally, I'm not looking for W3C to take a political position
    MW> - just for it to facilitate the technical work.

Do I understand it right that if e.g. some governments decided to
propose and standardize a Web censorship system, W3C would be a proper
place to define it?  Internet censorship is reality, there is demand for
it, readers of approved content would benefit from it while those
seeking for censored content would be no worse with it, and there is no
evidence censorship is going to spread to other countries just because
of its standardization.  If there was a demand for such a Web standard
then W3C, as a technical body not taking political positions, should
satisfy it and help making the censorship standardization process open
and producing better results.  Why should anybody complain?  It's not
exactly matching EME, but I can see more similarities than differences
and very good match with pro-EME arguments.

Received on Saturday, 19 October 2013 22:45:35 UTC