Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I far prefer direct conversation to false politeness.
I am worse than Simon for heel-nipping, and I like Jonathan and
Simon personally (Jonathon suddenly sang a great Appalacian song to me
once, to my delight, but Simon's wife made a toy from the Schematron
mascot, so I am not sure who is the more charming), but I do share
Simon's disquiet about the direction of W3C specifications: it is hard
to think of one that has been modest, straightforward and small-player-enhancing
for the last two years.
W3C is fundamentally a large-vendor-mediating organization, and there
is no reason to expect that the result of that mediation (within certain
parameters of review for i18n and accessibility and Web-architecture)
will be good for the non-commercial community or small players, who
have an especial interest in stability not churn for fundamental standards.
(How could W3C be made into a less large-vendor-dominated organization?
Well, if every WG had at least 33% of votes from non-W3C, non-commercial
organizations -- excluding academics receiving funding from large companies --
and if smaller vendors could band together to hire representatives -- the
recent rules for W3C was that WG members had to be fulltime employees
of a W3C member--, and if at least 33% of WG members had to come from
W3C members outside USA, that would be a start. With no rules like that
in place, of course W3C-developed technology will develop along certain
predictable lines, favouring large, commercial, Western interests.)