xml-dev - Re: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

[Cavre <cavre@mindspring.com>]

Hmm

Interesting question to say the least.

*********** Mike.Champion ***********

On 10/16/00 at 1:59 PM Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:

<snip>
*************
MISSION

What does "leading the web to its full potential" mean to YOU?  Charging
forward toward the Semantic Web, cleaning up the loose ends left behind by
the Syntactic Web (?) or what?

*************
This question is too generic.  Every developer is going to have their own beliefs as
to how, what, and why "leading the web to its full potential" truly means.  This question
needs to be thrown out.  There are too many very good right answers and in fact there
is no real wrong answer.  Every developer could rightfully say they are assisting in
"leading the web to it's fullest potential".  It does not matter if they are working towards
a Semantic Web or just finishing up some loose ends by the Syntactic Web.  In both
cases a developer is expanding upon the potential of the web.

Lets redefine this question and apply it to the W3C.

What do you believe is the W3C's mission on the Internet?

I would be most curious to hear what you Mike believe the W3C's mission truly is.
In fact I would be very curious, since I am a member of Joe the public to hear from
other W3C members and find out what they believe is the true mission of W3C.  Please
don't give us the boring statement on W3C's home page.  Let's here what you have to say
from your heart.  I think the answers might surprise all of us.  Simon, how about yours??

**********

PROPOSALS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND STANDARDS?

What do you folks WANT a "W3C Recommendation" to signify?  How much
implementation experience from OUTSIDE a working group should be necessary
to enshrine something as a Recommendation?  Should the W3C encourage
Recommendations to be modular components that can be assembled into anything
from minimal subsets to monolithic monstrosities, or should the current "one
size fits all" objective be maintained? Should Recommendations be treated as
"standards," should there be a something like a "Strong Recommendation" that
has survived the test of time and the market, should the W3C refer
well-established Recommendations to the ISO, or what?

**********
No changes are needed (IMHO) except I think I would recommend the following:


1) Create a true "W3C STANDARD".  The only thing that happens here is that any
"REC" would become a "STANDARD" if and only if the "REC" was widely supported
and had been a "REC" for at least 3 years.  A perfect example is HTML3.2.  This
W3C recommendation has been available for 3 years, is widely supported by a
number of developmental tools, and can be executed in a wide variety of browsers
across multiple platforms.  Since there is easily over a million web pages supporting
this "REC" I think HTML3.2 has certainly passed real world testing. Now that is
certainly a standard.  However I would not consider HTML3.0 a standard due to the
many problems associated with that particular "REC" and the lack of support by the
general public.

This would lend a great deal of creditability to W3C as a "standards organization".

2) Require all members to support at least one "Standard" completely or the member
will lose their voting rights within W3C (but not the seat which the company, organization,
or individual may or may not have purchased).  This I feel is important. First the member
will have had 3 years to bring any software they have up to the soon to be "STANDARD".
I mean really if any company, organization, or individual cannot bring their software up to
standards set by the W3C in 3 years then maybe they should reconsider the design of
that software in the first place.  In most cases the software will be out of date by this time
anyway and they should be working on the latest "REC".  Second I think it is very
important that all W3C members support the existing standards to the fullest.  This would
also give the W3C some real power for a change and a bit of accountability that seems
to have been expressed here.

3) Create a true "W3C Standards Seal of Approval".  I wish I could add up the total amount
of wasted time trying to develop web pages for the two most used browsers on the market
today.  The cost in time has been huge. And since I am not the only developer on the web
developing web pages I would be most curious to get some basic stats about the amount
of development time wasted trying to develop for these two browsers for the last 5 years for
all developers of web pages Internet wide.  I dare say the figure would be enormous.  And
so hence I am requesting or suggesting (begging, demanding, pleading as well which ever
actually works here) for a "W3C Standards Seal of Approval."  I am going to let all of you
figure out how this should work, this post is getting long enough already.  But lets get it.  I
know all of you will come up with ideas that have already formed in my head.

3) Working Drafts and finial votes (by this I mean "CR" to "REC") should be posted
for public view. But not in house discussions about any working draft, "CR" or "REC".
Ok clear point here - I feel it's important that Joe the public understand why a company
may not support a particular "REC".  It does not matter the reason, but I feel we the public
should have access to the finial vote (from "CR" to "REC").
**********

OPENNESS

There are three types of mailing lists associated with a W3C working group:
public, "interest group", and "working group".  The public lists are open to
anyone and are used (as near as I can see) mostly to solicit feedback from
the public.  Some working groups (the DOM anyway) try hard to quickly
answer/explain/acknowledge the posts on the public mailing lists, others
respond mainly in the "disposition of public comments" section of the
Proposed Recommendation.  Interest Group mailing lists are open to W3C
members and invited experts who wish to follow a working group's activities
closely, and are (in principle) where most of the "real" discussion occurs.
Working Group lists are strictly private (not sure about the archives) to
the working group and are mainly for administrative.

Given that there's no way the W3C is going to make the detailed votes on
specific proposals available to the public (sorry, it ain't gonna happen, so
don't bother flaming me), what could it do to maximize the benefits of
"sunshine" without drying up the information flow?  Make Interest Group
mailing lists open to qualified people who agree to respect certain
guidelines (such as not publicly revealing who advocates what)? Eliminate
Interest Groups and encouraging all technical discussion to occur on the
public mailing lists and all member-confidential stuff to remain on the WG
mailing lists?  Farm out the public "brainstorming" of specs to OASIS TC's
and produce SAX-like "sense of the community" proposals, and only setup
Working Groups when the time comes for the heavy hitters to go into the
smoke-filled rooms to sort out who can implement what when?

**********

None of the above.  Look if I really am interested in the W3C then I will simply
pay my dues and become a voting member like all the previous members before
me.  W3C should NOT open up any forum that the members and only members
use to discuss any subject to which the W3C is work on.  Members need a place
where they can freely express their ideas, thoughts, and issues without the interference
of the general public.  More public forums might be a good idea, but don't change
the current established practice.  Beside's the only thing that would happen is that
the "smoke-filled rooms" would simply go underground.  At least for the moment we
know where they are and how to access them no matter how much some of us may
not like the cost to access them.

*************


CLARITY OF SPECS

What should the W3C as an organization do to encourage clearer specs?
Mandate a page limit?  Demand a relatively non-technical but "normative"
Tutorial/Background paper to accompany all specs (at least at the
Recommendation level)? Insist on an open source reference implementation?
Mandate some other formal language description?  Remember, that whatever you
suggest has to be implemented within the resources of the W3C itself and the
technical (or literary) capabilities of the participants.

****************

I won't begin to tell you my frustration, anger, and loss of respect for the W3C and
all it's members over the XML specs.  It's rather a mute point especially since I have
spent over $1,500.00 of my own cash in trying to learn this stuff (fast change for young
views).  From books to CD's to the latest software and developmental tool ect.. I know
that the authors of the "REC" and many books and tutorials have tried very hard to
make understanding all of this as clear as possible however they have all failed terribly
with the general public as a whole (IMHO and it seems in the opinion of many others as
well) .  My apologies to all the authors of books here, but as a member of Joe the public
well we all wish you would take a lesson in communication, because we just don't understand.

My worst frustration I can easily say is that I cannot tell you exactly where you went wrong.
I must be missing some basic concept or idea with XML.  You know I was able to read the
HTML specs and immediately use them.  I could test them out right home and make them work.
For some reason, which I have yet to fathom I cannot do that with XML.  Perhaps the reason
is that most of those who worked on XML came from a SMGL background. So since XML is a
SMGL-Lite meta language the learning path was more down hill rather than up hill.  However
for most of those of us HTML Developers we never learned SMGL so XML is a up hill battle in
concepts and ideas.

One simple suggestion here.  Take your specs to your local college.  Ask them to read
them and implement them.  Pay particular attention to their questions. THAT's the vague
area's.  The take specs to your local high school and follow this very same program.  Again
pay particular attention to their questions.  Again that's the vague areas.  Once you have done
this you will truly have specs that can be read by most anyone on the Internet. And that is
the cleanest specs to be read any where. If I was to suggest how the ISO or the IETF could
easily over take the W3C in specs it would simply to follow those simple directions.  The W3C
could never match them. You know the HTML specs would never have been as good as they
were if the W3C did not have the competition they did have during that time.  With XML they
never had any competition to worry about.  So the specs of course turned out less than what
they truly could have been.

Many of you may say this is dumbing down the specs.  But hey a lot of us developers on the
web don't have the college education that you may have.  I know I don't yet I have done very
well out here despite not having a college education.  And I can say that many times I have
helped those with a college degree understand just the simple (at least to me) HTML specs
provided by the W3C.  So much for our colleges...  But for those XML God of W3C don't
forget and leave out the small guy.  I mean we put you there we can just as easily take you
out by not supporting XML at all...  Never forget that.  Your competition is no longer IETF or
ISO,  but Joe the Public....  We have the finial voice in the end..  and right now many of us
are not happy.  And worse yet this feeling is growing...  So Mike Champion of W3C just what
are you going to do about all of this?  Inquiring Public Minds would like to know....

Cavre