- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 23 Apr 2002 20:18:29 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 19:14, David Orchard wrote: > For the W3C to NOT do Web Services, it would mean that many members of the > W3C - as at least represented at the web services workshop and the 64 paper > submissions - would be ignored. And that W3C Process would be ignored. We > have already had this debate, and the W3C Team and Membership have created > the Web Services Activity, Descriptions, and Architecture Groups. And the > W3C will create more Web Services Working Groups. The W3C has a > well-defined process, and it was followed. It seems that the question I asked earlier about the boundaries of Web was not such a bad one. David appears here to suggest that the Web is whatever the membership wants, subject to W3C process. I fear that recent exchanges are illustrating quite clearly how the will of the members, especially "big business", appears to inflict substantial costs on the Web by complicating its architecture immensely and perhaps irrevocably. I strongly suggest that the TAG (and perhaps the W3C) consider seriously the question of whether the Web is something whose outlines they are describing or simply a project that can go any direction its members find interesting or profitable. There's a lot of technical substance in that probably political decision. For specific TAG action, I suspect the Introduction to the Architecture document is once again worth a close read, and perhaps some extension to suggest which practices are inside or outside of the Web. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 20:28:15 UTC