- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:02:10 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Orion Adrian <oadrian@hotmail.com>, www-qa@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Orion Adrian wrote: > > > >> [company X is author of specification > >> company Y is on the working group but not implementing that spec > >> company Z disagres with X] > >> > > I believe that's a characterization of it. However we've yet to > > prove that rubber-stamping X's ideas are a bad idea for the rest > > of the community. > > Z is part of that community, and it would send them out of business. > It seems, therefore, that rubber-stamping X's ideas is bad for the > community. Whether it is bad or good would depend on company and community values. Many communities would benefit long-term if some companies would disappear or split up. If your definition of "good" is "membership fee", then you are right (and companies should be allowed to pay more to get their ideas standardized!). However, the correct answer in this situation is not rubberstamping. The correct answer, in this context, would be to let X publish its standard outside of the W3C venue. W3C should not be involved if there is only one company behind the technology. Why are we discussing this on the QA list? This is out of scope, IMO. Any sane person would agree that a spec is usually better when done by a single visionary supported by a large and diverse group of good reviewers, but it is not a QA WG topic. Most principles and tools discussed and developed by QA WG can and should be used by visionaries and teams alike. Alex.
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 13:04:55 UTC