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

[Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>]

Hi Cavre,

Cavre said:
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.

Didier replies:
This is an "a posteriori" matter of fact based on the social acceptance of a
recommendation. Let's call this a "de facto" standard. It is barely a
mechanism to protect the users.

Cavre said:
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....

Didier replies:
There we go. You have something here that help re-enforce the propagation of
a recommendation and thus make it truly implemented in "real" application.
Great idea!!! Now the question is: Why is this condition not part of the W3C
member's rule?

Cavre said:
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.

Didier replies:
You probably mean here conformance test suites. To obtain the stamp of
approval the W3C members would have to run the test suite in order to check
their implementation conformance to the recommendation. If successful, the
vendor may keep its W3C membership and put the W3C logo on their product.
Did I got you right? If yes, this is an other mechanism that could help
re-enforce conformance and provide a help protect the users.

Cavre said:
4) 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").

Didier replies:
I guess this is already the case but it does not re-enforce any good
behavior form the W3C members. (2) and (3) does.

My take: To keep the W3C membership, and if you ship a free or not free
product related to a W3C recommendation, this product has to implement and
comply to the recommendation in order for the member to keep his/her
membership. This simply means to W3C members "Walk your talk" :-).
On the other hand, That good behavior is re-enforced when the product has to
go through an acceptance test suite to be stamped as "W3C compliant" and
thus have the member to keep his membership. Thus, the user may recognize a
"W3C compliant" logo and know that this vendor support the recommendation
and thus that the document is potentially able to be interpreted on more
than one vendor's solution. This implies a power pattern shift from the
vendor to the user.

Now the question is: How many members the W3C consortium would have after 2
years if these conditions where the basic requirements? Does the big guys
(Sun, Oracle, Microsoft) would still be members? OK Let's finish this on
these open questions and let us ask, why these conditions are not there yet.
My own opinion is that the W3 consortium has been quite efficient to produce
recommendations but not necessarily very efficient to put in place
mechanisms to get them implemented (or compliant). In fact, this community
seems to be more efficient, as a group, to put some pressure on vendors for
conformance. Thus, this group represents the interest of the users, W3C
represents the interest of the vendors - the guys financing the W3C.

A positive note about W3C. At least now we can debate about a public
recommendation. Not long ago we could only buy products and updates. So, now
we have to find the right power balance between the interest of the users
and those of the vendors trying to make a living.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin
----------------------------------------------
Email: martind@netfolder.com
Conferences: xml devcon 2000 (http://www.xmldevcon2000.com)
		 Wireless Summit NY (http:www.pulver.com)
	       xml devcon 2001 London (http://www.xmldevcon2000.com)
Book: XML Professional (http://www.wrox.com)
column: Style Matters (http://www.xml.com)
Products: http://www.netfolder.comProducts: http://www.netfolder.com