Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 12:36, Lauren Wood wrote:
> Ann is completely correct. In theory, the W3C member companies could
> completely reject any given specification, disband the WG, and tell W3C not
> to put any more resources into it. And it has been known for individual
> member companies to vote against particular recommendations, though I
> don't know of any that have been entirely rejected. Member companies could
> equally demand that the entire specification be completely reworked.
> This tends not to happen, I think for a couple of reasons.
> [plausble reasons]
I think what was interesting about the original story, and what seems
very different from the descriptions you provide of the W3C, was:
1) The larger group was interested enough to exercise veto power
2) The comments were not constructive, yet the WG had no recourse to
reject them as incompatible with their vision.
3) The rejected specification's creators took up the challenge of trying
again with a very different approach. (And succeeded, at that.)
It's a very encouraging story to me, one that I have a very hard time
imagining happening in the W3C. This outcome seems like something the
W3C Process formally permits but practically avoids.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!