- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 07:02:19 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@exemplary.net> wrote: > >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. If fully open processes worked here, > the W3C never would have > been founded. Syllogism: 1. MS-Dos 4 sucked and was buggy and no-one used it 2. MS-Dos 4 was produced by a closed process. Conclusion: Closed processes suck. Syllogism: 1. HTML 3.0 was too big and no-one used it. 2. HTML 3.0 was produced by an open process. Conclusion: Open processes suck. Perhaps someone would like to point out the major logical error?! > Browsers are consumer applications. Lucky really. Only consumers (because they are ignorant) would tolerate the stuff that they are pushed. ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS)) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 10:02:20 UTC