[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Steven R. Newcomb" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:58:30 -0400
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I have a hard time understanding positions that force
> one group into domination by another and call that
> moral or public interest particularly if that position
> changes when the IP is theirs.
To be clear, my argument that internet and WWW 'standards' should be open is
based on practical not 'moral' concerns. The Internet and WWW have
themselves risen to success on the basis of open protocols. At the same time
there have been scores of proprietary network protocols, and even other
non-proprietary protocols that have been said to be superior in some way to
IP, TCP, HTTP etc etc. The question comes down to: ought the general public
look to the W3C as _the_ entity which recommends best practices for
operation of the Internet and WWW? This is not a 'moral' issue. Rather the
most practical issue of what will best promote the success of the Internet
(of course including businesses that _use_ the internet in the course of
their proprietary operations). I firmly believe that a proprietary Internet
would not have achieved the success the current Internet has.
> ... I shall anxiously
> await the Oracle and HP responses to working groups
> formed to standardize technologies in which they
> hold patents. My experience is that the rules are
> changed to suit the convenience of those who make
> the rules particularly if they can rewrite the
> history just as conveniently.
> Mine is the objectivist position with respect
> to that politic.
I still have no idea what you are saying.
> Still,the W3C acceptance or imprimatur may be irrelevant
> to the success of the product on the Internet. Flash
> is a good example. The WWW user adopts this because it
Exactly. Ditto PDF.