W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Anti-Ranti

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:46:19 -0800
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@xml.org>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <014e01bf8d29$c222cf60$fb06aace@brownell.org>
[ I'm not sure why schema-comments got cc'd on this, nothing I's said was
targetted at that effort ... ]

> > > The number one issue for democratization of the WWW is how to
> > > input from members of cultures which are based on discretion,
> > > to those you respect even when they are wrong, and politely waiting to
> > > be asked for an opinion at an appropriate time.
> >
> > Curiously, the official W3C process expects all non-members to wait
> > till "Proposed Recommendation" or (new) "Candidate Recommendation"
> > to express opinions.  An "appropriate" moment is already defined.
> Actually, comments are solicited in every public working draft.

Perhaps that's why they're actually public?  :-)

Likely I wrote too quickly.  Groups do vary differently in behavior,
and some of them actually do get and use fair amounts of public input.
We are agreeing that an "appropriate" moment is already defined.

My point was more about when folk who aren't _actively_ involved are
expected to contribute.  And the limited scope of contribution they
are effectively permitted to make ... because of timetables placed
on PR drafts (a month, vs much longer for the equivalent in other
"standards" bodies), momentum established among W3C members for some
particular approach, or in some cases arbitrary timetables set up
without reference to experience with the technologies.

So perhaps I should modify the original comment:  "The number one
issue for democratization of the WWW is how to ensure and accomodate
input from non-member organizations."

> As editor, I read everything sent to that list, and reply to many of
> the questions and suggestions submitted there, and these definitely
> feed into the design process.

So, you're one of the "good" WG members.  There are other WGs which I
have observed do NOT work that way at all.  That was essentially my
point:  W3C as a whole isn't constrained to be responsive except to

- Dave
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 15:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:46 UTC