Lists Home |
Date Index |
4/26/2002 8:43:10 AM, Jonathan Robie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hmm, the last of these was more than four years ago. And both of
> > them resulted from the W3C's "old" role as a place where vendors can
> > come together to define interoperability profiles of reasonably
> > well-understood technologies.
>As for the first point, I think you really need a few years to see how
>successful a technology will be in the marketplace, and what problems it
>causes in practice.
Absolutely! But my contention is that the W3C is a different beast than it was four years ago, with less
stomach for the down-n-dirty sorting out of vendor differences (HTML 3.2, DOM Level 1) or of best practices
gleaned from concrete experience (XML 1.0), and higher aspirations to do "new science." Thus, the assumption
that the W3C process will continue to produce success stories is questionable.
Of course, we really should just shut up, get back to work, and revisit this question in four years <grin>