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

[Cavre <cavre@mindspring.com>]

***********Didier PH Martin ***********

On 10/17/00 at 8:05 AM Didier PH Martin wrote:

<snip - in a effort to keep this as short as possible>
**********
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.
************

<chuckles> I guess this means you agree with me.
Please forgive my lack of education..

<snip>
(2)
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?

Not sure you will have to ask the W3C Members about that.

<snip>
(3)
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.

Yes indeed but why limit it to just W3C Members.  In truth any developer ought
to have the right to submit any application for review and maybe earn the W3C
logo.  Not just members alone.  However maybe members could get a free review,
where as non-members would have to pay a evaluation fee of some sort.

<snip>
(4)
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.

I agree but if you read through number 4 of my suggestions I think you
will find I am only refering to "REC"'s.  Developers are humans and as
such each developer will have his's or her's own ideas and views about
any particular "REC" or "standard".  Their application may not need all
the bulk a standard may require to be included just to meet "standards"

As such we need to allow for this.  It should be ok to support a "REC"
in full or in part.  All I am asking is that if you do please let the general
public know this about your application and if possible your reasons
why.

I still believe that if your going to support a "standard" you support this
"standard" in full.  No exceptions allowed.  Any developer has freedom
of expression by supporting the "REC".  It's that freedom of expression
that I wish to keep as open as possible as much as possible. But a "standard"
is a "standard" and we all need to follow it.  Please consider HTML Strict
for a good example.

*************
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.
***************

Much too restrictive here.   Let's limit this to just voting right's only please.
Remember every member as paid a great deal of money to join the W3C.
They should not lose their seat.  They should still be allowed to participate
as always, but when it comes to the voting.  Those who have met standards
should be the ones to vote the new standards in.

***************
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.
*****************

Well it seems to me, but perhaps I maybe wrong but I believe since the big
guys like to set the standards anyway then they should by all rights encourage
such a policy.  In early days I can easily see where this sort of policy in the
W3C would be harmful to the growth of the W3C.  But today the W3C is a
mature organization.  I think the members and the organization can easily
see the advantages of becoming standards compliant.  Both Microsoft and
Netscape are both working very hard to ensure their products are up to
W3C "REC"'s at least from my view point. I am wrong?? If I am then one can hope.

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

Well the nice thing is that the market place always determines the winner.
Is this not so??

Cavre