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

Re: Role of the TAG Re: polyglot…blabla…open web…blabla…

From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:30:35 -0600
Message-ID: <5109D74B.9050804@mkbergman.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Hi Charles,

I think your points are exactly so and well stated.

 From an enterprise perspective, we are definitely seeing transitions to 
Web-oriented architectures because the largest information properties on 
the globe have proven they work at scale and they are interoperable. 
Enterprises are also more cognizant of bringing public data into their 
knowledge and management systems.

This admixing of the closed, proprietary and the open, public is an 
abiding trend for enterprises. I believe the self-interest of these 
enterprises ensures this trend will continue. The W3C has been the 
enabler of these WOA architectures; to question the applicability of 
these standards to mixed closed-and-open systems is perplexing. It is 
hard to see why questioning this premise should even be raised.

Best, Mike

On 1/30/2013 6:10 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:50:28 +0100, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
>> On Jan 25, 2013 7:36 PM, "David Sheets" <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Alex Russell
>>> <slightlyoff@google.com> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:16 PM, David
>>> Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Alex
>>> Russell >> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Sheets
>>> <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Alex Russell >> >> > On Thu,
>>> Jan 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM, David Sheets >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013
>>> at 2:14 PM, Alex Russell
>
>
>>> >> > On the open web (where I expect that the
>>> >> > contract about what is and isn't XML are even more important),
>>> or >> > inside closed systems and organizations?
>
>>> >> When you publicly publish something and declare your intent, you are
>>> >> on the "open web".
>
>>> > I think you'll struggle to get most W3C members to accept that >
>>> definition.
>
> I don't think so. I think there are many W3C members who are using Web
> technology in closed environments as well as the open web, consider that
> an important use case for the web, and believe that it is the TAG's role
> to support this use case in their work. I suspect that this covers a large
> majority of W3C members.
>
> For that matter, quite possibly it also applies to a majority of the
> content that is produced and consumed based on Web technology. It's
> difficult to measure, since we need to agree on how we determine the
> volume of given kinds of content and given consumption patterns, but in
> any case I assume it is clear that massive amount of content is "closed",
> in services such as facebook, vkontakte, ya.ru, firefoxOS, various webmail
> systems, and more. There is a further set of content that is in more
> tightly-defined "intranets" - the archives of many companies, governments,
> and individuals are kept in closed systems based on Web technology.
>
>>> What definition do you suggest "most W3C members" would accept for
>>> "open web"? Does "open web" exclude some transports? Some formats?
>
>>> >> > I don't see that the TAG has any duty to the latter, so it's an
>>> >> > honest question.
>
>>> >> Even "closed" systems export data and use off-the-shelf browsers.
>>> >> Furthermore, many of these "closed" systems will be opening up in the
>>> >> future. The TAG has a responsibility to guide publishers and
>>> >> implementors who wish to support W3C standard formats in their >>
>>> systems that do or may interact with the web.
>
>>> > Our job is not to sell the web to a possible new audience -- it >
>>> doesn't need our help and we're the last group I can imagine being
>>> > effective as salespeople
>
>>> You are responding to a figment. I mentioned nothing of sales or
>>> marketing. The publishers and implementors are already sold and "wish
>>> to support W3C standard formats in their systems that do or may
>>> interact with the web".
>
> Right. Our job is to make the Web meet the needs of its stakeholders.
> You can define that narrowly as W3C, you could define it broadly as "the
> people who use it". But it seems that Alex' sense of "the people who use
> the open web" fails to match the membership
>
>>> > -- it's to help publishers understand how the rules work so that
>>> > they can join it and to help spec authors make sure the rules are >
>>> sane in the long-run.
>
>>> I believe that we agree here.
>
> I suspect that we all agree on something we understand from this
> statement, but disagree on what that is. Part of making the web sane in
> the long run is making it work for people now - which comes at a price
> of probably complicating our lives later when we agree on the details of
> goals where we currently want to do things differently. Because burning
> out all the "unbelievers" (whether it means the non-XML users of 2003 or
> the XML users of 2013) is throwing a lot of important babies out with
> some bathwater that's actually still pretty useful. (To mix metaphors,
> unless you're in Oz)
>
> I think an important role of the TAG is to understand the needs of a
> very broad set of stakeholders, without restricting them by either
> ability to pay and participate in W3C nor by the fact that their
> priorities mean that they see no rush to upgrade their systems and tools
> to the latest and most efficient, and actively avoid doing so to spend
> their time and effort on something more important. This is an exercise
> in finding balances, and knowing which rough compromises are among the
> more sustainable, fair, and useful to achieve the greater good of people
> now and in the future - in other words, there is a fair bit of guesswork
> and the kinds of judgements that cannot a priori be defended nor
> defeated on pure technical grounds.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 02:31:05 UTC

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