W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Scope of W3C recommendations; core issue for polyglot & DRM

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:45:34 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130128184534.GA30725@crum.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2013-01-28 17:34 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> > I think getting agreement on scope is necessary and possibly sufficient to
> > resolve the polyglot and DRM issues. Is it OK for W3C to publish a
> > FPWD/Recommendation track document which has limited scope of applicability,
> > as long as there are at least _some_ proponents in the W3C community?
> I think whenever we do that (e.g. SVG, SMIL, TTML) we find that the
> technology we ended up with for a closed ecosystem either needs
> changing or is not appropriate at all for wide deployment on the web.
> I would therefore be hesitant to advocate such an approach.

I think there's a slight logical jump here that's implicit in Anne's
message:  historically, when W3C builds a technology that's not for
the Web as viewed in browsers, and then if the browsers need
something similar but not identical (because of the desire for
something less complex, or something with a different security
model), or if there's slight demand for something similar in
browsers but not enough to meet the normal standard for adding
features, various parties try to force the first technology on the
browsers because it's already a W3C recommendation.  I wrote about
this previously at http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a .


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 18:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:51 UTC