[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> It is too simplistic to state that "The W3C is evil". It is a little
> more perceptive to comment that W3C process is defective in that it
> allows a closed process of specification development .... a
> self-selected few in closed Working Groups producing "Requirements" in a
> process which is closed at crucial points and with sometimes closed ears
> at each public step in response to adverse comment ... to bulldoze
> through special interest topics then label the result a "standard".
But then it is my understanding that the bInfoset workshop is open to
the public, provided one submits a position paper. So I don't see how
your complaints about openness apply.
> As I have asked previously, to what end is the W3C "leading the Web to
> its full potential ...."? It is a pretty sad state of affairs if the
> real answer is "The W3C ... leading the Web to its full potential ....
> to satisfy the commercial interests of special interest groups.". Surely
> a supposed "standards body" should aspire to something better?
blah blah blah blah blah
> Returning to the point on which you sought comment. I don't hold either
> of the views you offer. I view "Binary XML" as an oxymoron. If "XML" as
> defined in the XML 1.0 Rec is "XML" then "Binary XML" doesn't exist in
> my view.
But then the workshop isn't called the "Binary XML Workshop". Just
because Eliotte chose to use that term in his FUD-spreading doesn't mean
it has any relationship with reality.
--
Robin Berjon
|
