[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really ad

• Subject: RE: W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really ad
• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <DC1124C4368AA9438D9DEC34ECB6F162013EBA3E@o...>

My two cents worth of thought after going through the archives. I believe
people should not be paranoid that any statement they make getting to
public, and being misinterpreted, and being harmful to them/to their
company. Any one who tries to misquote statements from people, I am quite
sure will not be given much importance. In short, I believe openness is
how things should be.

W3C and OASIS, and other organizations have done great benefit to the
growth of XML. We all share a common goal -- that is to solve problems
related to XML, and to exploit the advantages of XML. So the way we do our
activities, as part of the organizations, or as individuals, might be
different, and our solutions might be different. We may have our own
internal arguments, but we are all united in our common goals.

cheers and regards - murali.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Matthew Gertner wrote:

> Well, I'm really pleased to hear that the W3C has taken steps to open up
> their process. I've wondered for a long time why they haven't just bitten
> the bullet and done this.
>
> Wrt the rest of your post: everything in life is a tradeoff, and openness in
> standards efforts is no exception. Of course being closed will have some
> marginal advantages, to the extent that any chance of misrepresentation is
> eliminated. The point is that the coin has a flip side that is far more
> significant. There is widespread perception that the W3C could benefit
> greatly from more openness. All this talk about conflict being picked up by
> the press seemed almost plausible back in the days of the MS/NS browser
> wars, but those days are over. I challenge anyone to point to even one post
> in the archives for, say, the XML Schema WG (one of the highest profile
> efforts), that could have somehow been latched onto by the press. All of the
> discussion is highly technical and, frankly, frightfully boring to the
> general or even general technical public.
>
> Anyway, I guess we've beaten this dead horse enough. I really am glad to
> hear that progress has been made on this front. The standards landscape is
> getting pretty competitive, and the W3C as much as anyone needs to do as
> much as it can to be inclusive and make sure its specs are useful to a broad
> public and get corresponding buy-in.
>
> Matt

• References:
  • RE: W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really ad
    • From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• Next by Date: RE: What does SOAP really add?
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really ad
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really ad
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread