W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vision-core@w3.org > July 2010

Re: What is W3C trying to accomplish?

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:32:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4C497DCF.6070500@w3.org>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-vision-core <public-vision-core@w3.org>

"to standardize a universal open platform.."

We will have to detail what is covered by "standardize".

The minimum is just publishing a spec I guess.
In more official SDOs, the presence of formal tests and/or a certification 
program is usually included as part of the standardization process.

IMO the details of "standardize" should at least talk about "running code" 
(ietf), candidate rec (w3c).



Le 22/07/2010 16:36, Jeff Jaffe a écrit :
> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 21:23 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> I'd like to see if we could agree on a refinement of our Core mission at
>> a high level.
> We need to put equal (if not more) effort into developing proposals on
> how to better achieve the core mission. Some measure of clarifying "Core
> mission" is worthwhile. But I'm more worried about determining what
> additional steps are required to better achieve it.
>>
>> We all know we're trying to bring the Web to its full potential. That's
>> the PR message.
>>
>> I believe that our Core mission is:
>> [[
>> to standardize a universal open platform for data, documents and
>> applications on the Web that is suitable for human to machine and
>> machine to machine interaction.
>> ]]
>>
>> The universal aspect here is that our technologies are intended to be
>> used at a Web scale. Any use case that cannot find a justification in
>> the public Web, ie outside firewalls, shouldn't be classified as Core,
>> even though it may still be addressed for other reasons.
>>
>> By"on the Web", I do mean having the ability to dereference URIs using
>> the HTTP protocol, with whatever device possible (desktop, laptop,
>> cellphone, TVs, cameras, car embedded systems, etc.). It doesn't mean
>> that other protocols aren't relevant but, again, they're not part of
>> Core.
>>
>> Would anyone disagree that this is not what W3C ought to achieve? Am I
>> leaving out important of Core mission?
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 11:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:47:24 UTC