W3C Curmudgeon (Was Re: Web Philosophy)

[AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

In a message dated 28/03/01 06:15:49 GMT Daylight Time, 
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com writes:


> Ann Navarro wrote:
>
> > You end up with chaos, or something that looks like the
> > progress that IETF gets.
>
> This is irredeemable rubbish.
>
> <rant>
> I have come to the conclusion that the most public defenders of the W3C
> are the W3C's own worst PR nightmare.  Now I would prefer more openness in
> the W3C, but I'm not W3C curmudgeon to the extent that, say Simon is,
> though I respect his view.
>
> Nevertheless, I've observed that whenever this debate comes up in certain
> fora, some of the W3C's defenders always seem to fall back to personal
> attacks on their opponents or deprecation of the work of other 
> organizations.


Curmudgeon variously means grasping, avaricious, crusty, ill-tempered. To be 
fair to Simon I haven't seen him behave in any of these ways when raising 
valid issues re W3C.

I agree with you that it would be good to see more openness in the W3C. I 
would also like to see better quality i.e. clearer communication from W3C 
which addresses a broader audience.

Andrew Watt