[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>
- To: Bill dehOra <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:23:23 +0100 (BST)
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Bill dehOra wrote:
> The W3C is funded by self-interested entities. If these entities are basing
> business strategy on the outcomes of the W3C's end-products (normative
> recommendations) and are arguing their case technically and strategically,
> and assuming (as I do) that are no technological motives for technology then
> it's a reasonable act of self-interest for them to ask for non-disclosure.
This is the argument I have a real problem with. If the W3C is closed
simply so that the member organisations can get a "leg-up" over, say,
someone wanting to implement an open source equivalent of said
specification then something is really wrong with the system. How can this
situation end up with anything *but* competing implementations, rather
than interoperable, compatible implementations?
> Simply, the internet is not and never has been, free.
Maybe you got there after I did. I remember a pretty free internet, when
companies didn't even know what the internet *was* (and I'm not even very
old!).
--
<Matt/>
/|| ** Director and CTO **
//|| ** AxKit.com Ltd ** ** XML Application Serving **
// || ** http://axkit.org ** ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP **
// \\| // ** Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/ **
\\//
//\\
// \\
|