xml-dev - RE: Will XML change the character of W3C? Was: Re: sunshine andstandard

[Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>]

> I'm uncomfortable with the closed nature of
> W3C's specification-development efforts. 

I would tend to argue that the process is perhaps "too open"
in that anyone with the $$$ can join in.

> It's possible, I think, to say that one of the distinctions
> is that everyone on an IETF committee is an "invited expert," meaning
> that large companies don't get representation for a fee, and the
> inevitable barrier to entry is there one of skill, not of choice of
> employer (this is not to say that anyone sponsored by a member org is
> necessarily less skilled, mind).

Well, the IETF is a self-enforcing entity. From what I have seen
of the IETF (and I've had some involvement over the years), the
various working groups (in rought order of occurence) limit 
participation by people without skill, limit participation of 
people that do not agree with a particular technical direction, 
and in some cases, control success via politics.

> I think that this is true, and I think that, in the realm of W3C
> standards, this tends to mean that the vendors who can afford
> representation are going to 1) have advance notice of the shape of
> future standards, 2) be able to shape those standards (within limits)
> to meet their needs, but also 3) these vendors are going to also use
> their muscle in the market to make the standards real.

All of these have, and will occur in the W3C. I would argue though
that if you replace "vendor" by "interested party" the IETF and
indeed, most standard organizations, aren't much better. 

> But the other outstanding success of the W3C is of a completely
> different character.  That's XML.  The spec is brilliant (it's *short*! 
> You can read and understand it!  And the content provides truly
> enormous power).  Initially positioned as a resolution of the problems
> and shortcomings of HTML (so I first learned of it, at least), it has
> turned out to have deep-reaching implications that have not yet been
> explored.

I think that XML was formed in a brillient manner. The initial standard
was produced by a small group of deeply experienced individuals with
roughly a common goal. Politics was largely kept out of the standards
process, as was "vendor pressue", until it became clear that XML was
"hot". 

> What I'm trying to get at, I guess, is that with the introduction of
> XML, W3C began to change character, from the treaty-making represented
> by HTML 3.2 (and CSS, ineffective as that attempt was), to something
> more similar to the innovative role played by the IETF.

I think W3C is trying to make the transition, but again, there are
many cases where the standarisation is ill-advised simply due to
lack of coherent vision driven by market requirements and/or
experience.

> So, rah rah the IETF and the open model of the IETF, and may W3C move
> in that direction, as XML's publication may let them do.

As I said, I've been involved with the IETF, and I can tell you that
it is nowhere nearly as open as you might imagine. All the same
pressues come to bear... the only difference is that the players don't
have to necessarily pay to participate. I have seen cases of
politics/vendor pressure killing technically superior approaches
in the IETF, and the "openness" didn't help one bit.

FWIW. I think my main complaint is that people are trying to standardize
too much too fast... and the IETF is also guitly of this. 

I'm a fan of "rapid evolutionary design", and feel that until 
you've solved the same problem a few times, you certainly
don't have enough experience to define a standard. I'll be *very*
surpised if many of the recent standards don't either fall by
the wayside, or change drastically over the next 5 years.

Still, as Mike notes, the role that the W3C plays in acting
as a catalyst, or a place for vendors to talk, is an important
one... and that does need to be preserved.