W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] some issues

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:57:18 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d31040711035776b7ff90@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:48:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> >> I'm using "open" in the senses of:
> >> * Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants: an open
> >>   competition.
> >> * Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions: open registration.
> >> * Free of prejudice; receptive to new ideas and arguments: She listened
> >>   to the proposal with an open mind.
> >
> > I'm amazed I didn't believe a WG with even less openness than the W3C
> > could exist, let alone created.
> 
> In what way is what I describe above more closed than the W3C? As far as I
> can tell, the W3C is not open in _any_ of the ways described above, 

Anyone can join the W3C working group - it either takes cash (not even
that much) or you can request an invitation as an invited expert, so
you can actually join the WG, unlike here, where you can just comment
on the public list - something you can do on W3 lists too.  So on the
first defintion the W3C is more open than the WHAT-WG IMO.

The W3C doesn't limit what it's willing to discuss.  The WHAT-WG will
not change XHTML WF conformancy requirements because "XML is out of
scope".  So the W3C is more free from more limitations than the
WHAT-WG.

The 3rd definition, well I don't believe an organisation can be closed
to new ideas, and certainly haven't found the individuals to be any
more closed within the W3C than outside, not sure how we could really
judge it in any case.

> > So either it's not an open process as you've "never said" or you're
> > going against the position paper that was supposed to be what told us
> > this was all about - which is it?
> 
> We used the word "open" to mean its dictionary definitions that I quoted
> above. 

I think it's a shame you didn't explain this previously as I think I'd
used my interpretation many times before, it might've saved this whole
sub-thread.

Still, we might aswell return to more substantive things, no need to
reply (unless you want to of course).

Jim.
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2004 03:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC