- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:42:56 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> this applies equally to html and W3C and WAI are supported fairly liberally > by 'commercial interests' I suspect it is the cost of production point to which this really applies. What I was trying to say here is that once "web" content gets taken over by the mass media, it will naturally aim low in terms of the comprehension skills of its audience, and therefore that keeping material easily comprehensible is a main streak requirement for the sorts of media that can only really be produced by large organisations. I would actually argue that HTML, in its origins, did significantly undermine existing commercial interests, but the sorts of features you like are in there because they are what the commercial interests need, not what is needed for peer to peer communication. I'd further say that W3C was largely flying in the face of commercial wants by stressing structure, and its separation from presentation. Most commercial interest is in terms of vehicles for one way influence of humans, whereas the W3C position favours a much more balanced relationship, and favours machine to machine communications, which would permit consumers to make much more objective decisions, and internal technical communication, where accurate commuication, rather than influence, is needed. I suspect that many of the company representatives on the W3C are their strongest technical people, not their most business aware people. One indicator of this is the failure of member home pages to comply with the standards that their experts are helping to form. If HTML were aligned with commercial wants, the majority of HTML would be written according to the intended semantics; in practice less than 5% is, which strongly indicates that the market demand much better aligns with PDF's intended market. On the other hand, technology for streaming audio is largely aimed at the same, popular music, market as CDs and commercial radio. Although I didn't say so, it is fairly obvious, from the way that it is funded, that W3C is not going to do anything that undermines the existing film and music industries, but that was the cost of production point. I think what you are really talking about is a form of redistribution of wealth. I don't think that can happen directly in internet terms; I think it can only happen as the result of the implementation of micropayments, allowing the donation of electronic cash that can buy this sort of resource. Anything else would be just too open to fraud.
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 15:47:38 UTC