Re: Why is the W3c so 'closed'?

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Christopher R. Maden wrote:

> [Matthew Brealey]
> >crism@exemplary.net (Christopher R. Maden) writes:
> >
> >> Privacy allows large competitive companies to join and participate
> >> without surrendering strategic advantage.
> >
> >This I cannot accept, because the WG must, by definition, have more
> >competitor participation than public discussion forums.
> 
> The alternative was non-participation from Microsoft and Netscape, just
> like in the IETF process whose failure (at HTML) necessitated the formation
> of the W3C.

And appearances from the outside are that Netscape still didn't really
participate prior to the Mozilla project. And the open source aspect of
that project largely innoculates any effect--good or bad--of the W3C's
closed doors. So we're now down to one of your example companies as
rationale for the W3C's closed process. Hm. Hence the term "MSW3C", I
suppose.

Yes, I know this is a gross simplification. But the public's perception
usually is.

> Browsers are consumer applications.  The Open Source community is not very
> good at consumer applications.  Microsoft now dominates the browser world,
> as Netscape did before them.  HTML, XML, CSS, XSL, and PNG are controlled
> by the W3C.

PNG is controlled by the W3C? That's news. All they seem to have done is
rubber-stamped an existing specification. How does this endow them with
control?

-- 
Braden N. McDaniel
braden@endoframe.com
<URL:http://www.endoframe.com>

Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 17:27:26 UTC