[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
9/14/2002 11:05:05 PM, Dare Obasanjo <kpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
><personal-opinion>
>Being able to selectively ignore the work of other W3C
>working groups as well as other groups within the
>computer industry when coming up with technologies
>seems to be an unwritten requirement for W3C working
>group membership.
></personal-opinion>
Uhh, there is only one written or unwritten requirement for W3C
working group membership -- having a member organization appoint a
representative. It's all good fun to blame some cabal in
Cambridge for the W3C's failings (or praise them for its
successes) but at the end of the day it's the members who
do the work and pay the bills. And at the end of the year,
if the members care enough to send qualified people to working
groups with instructions to share the necessary knowledge and
make the necessary compromises to build useful specs,
the WG succeeds.
>
>I mean, really who is supposed to use XLink now when
>the very technology it was supposedly designed for has
>dissed it in such a callous manner?
I don't know. All I know is that different groups of people
addressed different problems at different times. It would have
been a freakin' miracle if they came up with consistent solutions
without someone banging heads together. And last I heard, when
the W3C Director tries to bang heads together to get consistency,
it's the biggest companies that scream the loudest. (As well they
should, IMHO ...)
>
>Behavior like this does not inspire confidence in the
>W3C's internal processes at all.
I agree. The W3C, and every other standards organization with
which I'm familiar, is staffed by humans. Humans are notorious
for disagreeing, changing their minds, learning from the failures
of themselves and others, bitching about orders from the Established
Authorities, and generally muddling through as best
they can. Get the damned humans out of the loop, and things
will be a lot more orderly and predictable. :-)
|
