- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0000
- To: <www-qa@w3.org>
"Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Brian Kelly wrote: > > > It's becoming unclear to me with the QA group is the technical marketing > > wing of W3C or an honest balanced broker of advice, covering legitimate > > concerns over deployment issues. > > > > I would prefer the latter approach (I think the former approach will > > lead to dangers of W3C being marginalised - a sentiment I hear fairly > > frequently). > > I would expect W3C bias and would have no problems with it as long as > it is explicit. It is perfectly fine for a W3C WG to be a biased > advocate of W3C technologies, but it is not morally acceptable for a > WG to engage in FUD wars, IMO. I don't think it's appropriate for a QA group to advocate anything that is not the best quality, if there are issues with W3 technologies which mean they are not the appropriate solution, then it needs to be mentioned. Although the main problem I have with the tip, is absence of any tip - we just need a conclusion, something like "PNG is to be preferred, due to lower file-sizes, and lack of patent encumberance on user agents, however there are some deployment problems with older user agents, and content negotiation can be used to over come this" with a link to a good explanation on content-negotiation (which probably needs writing) Jim.
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 12:51:30 UTC