Re: TAG and WWW Architecture

Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net> wrote:

> say "Architecture is very sensitive, the sunshine requirements for TAG
> proceedings should be even more intense than for normal working groups" that
> makes a lot of sense.

I agree, the publicity requirements of TAG should be far more intense than
normal working groups. This is my point: The TAG seems to have a position
where it can do more than coordinate W3C work -- it seems to be able to
issue recommendations about Web architecture itself. This is why I feel that
TAG must be structured in such a way that the larger community be consulted
and a member in TAG's decision-making process.

> It's there with a TAG or without a TAG.  If you're spooked
> by privacy, push for sunshine.  But don't kill the TAG just because there is
> some privacy in the W3C's work rules.  The W3C badly needs the TAG so its
> various Recommendations speak with one mind.  Otherwise we will just have
> created a nice brand "w3.org" for yet another re-invention of the Tower of
> Babel.

I apologize if I ever gave this impression. My goal is not to kill TAG -- I
feel web architecture is _very_ important. So important, in fact, that I do
not believe that the W3C should be able to make decisions about it without
significant provisions for input from the wider community.

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 14:00:32 UTC