Re: Rebalancing How the Web is Built

Indeed.

Even in the consumer world, some use cases (e.g. P2P, but not shopping) may
have an API-enabled, non-browser app at both ends. Much as telecom flipped
from voice, to data-over-voice, to voice-over-data, I suspect we will see a
shift to API- and network-centric scenarios where browser interactions play
a much smaller role. Network cases - where an app's user is effectively
another app - may be particularly important. This may have large
implications for early standards implementation and adoption dynamics. It
seems as if the W3C still aspires to be the standards-setter for this
larger Web Platform... but that's not a given.

In the B2B world, the picture is even clearer: it's not about browsers.
Some efforts are going on now to define the "Internet of Payments"
standards, and perhaps a broader framework. W3C is not top of the list of
relevant standards organizations. Implementations are more likely to depend
initially on API-enabled connections into widely-deployed financial
systems.  Ultimately, I suspect that it will make sense to align such an
IoP effort with a broader-based Web Platform (even if browser use cases
remain secondary).




On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> > For standards that do not require updating the browser platform the W3C
> is not a given venue
>
> This is an under-considered factor.
>
> I would say that it is not the size of organizations that matters but
> their ability to implement the standards. Since most standards at W3C these
> days are implemented by, or in conjunction with, browsers they hold all of
> the power.
>
> As Anders suggests, the problem is as much about getting buy in from the
> most influential members for work that they may not have the power to
> influence through their implementations as it is persuading them to take an
> interest.
>
>
> On 12 September 2016 at 18:00, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
>> Manu et.al.
>>
>> What I hear in your proposal is a call for Inclusive Web Development.
>>
>> Here's a curious thing...
>>
>> I and some others on this list have been participating during the past
>> year and bit in the US Fed's "Faster Payments Task Force", and I reckon all
>> who have participated would agree with me that their process has been
>> remarkably inclusive. (Please correct that assessment, if anyone who's been
>> involved would disagree.) Yet I think in general perceptions, the US Fed is
>> not typically described as an inclusive sort of consortium.
>>
>> Also, later this month the start-up that I lead, which is a
>> commercially-funded free/libre/source foundation, will be taking part in
>> the World Trade Organization's 2016 Public Forum where the theme is,
>> ...wait for it: "Inclusive Trade"  https://www.wto.org/english/fo
>> rums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm   And yet the popular view
>> of the WTO is not that it's particularly inclusive.
>>
>> To determine if the W3C is perceived by a significant proportion of new
>> entrants to Web R&D as falling short on "inclusivity", I wonder if somebody
>> would set up a respectfully balanced survery with LimeSurvey or
>> SurveyMonkey or equivalent.
>>
>> If such a sentiment that the W3C seriously lacks in terms of inclusivity
>> is significant by some reasonable metric, surely TBL himself ought to
>> respond directly to the issue, and at minimum request that staff *and
>> W3C Members* undertake a process entitled "Inclusive Web Standards".
>>
>> Joseph Potvin
>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/11/2016 12:28 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>>> > 1. Don't large W3C member firms often face the same frustrations with
>>> > other large competitor firms?
>>>
>>> Not often and if it does happen, it doesn't happen very publicly.
>>> Typically less is asked of large organizations trying to do something at
>>> W3C than small organizations. This may be because large organizations
>>> vet a lot of this behind the scenes and come into the process more
>>> prepared. Or it may be because larger organizations don't need to prove
>>> that they can make the solution work in the market as much as a group of
>>> smaller organizations because they can usually fall back to the "we have
>>> millions of customers, of course we can make the standard work in the
>>> market" argument.
>>>
>>> > Is this really a size issue ultimately, or a general governance
>>> > issue?
>>>
>>> It's a bit of both. It's a messy problem.
>>>
>>> > 2. Would your proposed approach have W3C funding implications, where
>>> >  some major donors find it less useful for constraining competition?
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but I think the larger organizations are more concerned about
>>> the high cost of failure at W3C (staffing costs) rather than the ability
>>> to constrain competition. I have had discussions with many of the
>>> Advisory Committee reps from the large organizations and their focus has
>>> always seemed to be on using W3C resources wisely.
>>>
>>> > And one tweak for consideration:
>>> >
>>> > RE: "Produce two implementations and a test suite."
>>> >
>>> > I'd suggest three, and on different platforms.
>>>
>>> The W3C requirements are two so I didn't want to raise the bar more than
>>> necessary. Also note that these implementations can be /very expensive/
>>> to implement and raising that particular bar would make it more
>>> difficult for small organizations to innovate.
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Advancing the Web Payments HTTP API and Core Messages
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/yes-to-http-api/
>>>
>>>
>>
>