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

RE: Web Philosophy

• From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>
• To: 'Ann Navarro' <ann@w...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:14:32 +0200

Ann Navarro wrote:
> This is neither a personal attack nor a deprecation of others 
> work. It is 
> simply a statement of conflicting demands upon the W3C: "Be 
> fast!" and "Be 
> far more open!" -- the two don't work well together, in my 
> opinion, and 
> IETF I believes shows that the "any and all comers" model 
> produces work 
> more slowly.

Be that as it may, it could be argued quite easily that the W3C as it
currently stands is neither fast nor open. I wouldn't label the
contributions of W3C advocates to this type of discussion as universally
personal attacks or deprecation of other people's work, but one thing that I
have definitely never seen is any indication whatsoever that the constant
stream of dissatisfaction expressed by many parties has translated into even
the slightest willingness among the W3C powers-that-be to consider that some
changes might be apt, let alone any action in this direction.

I personally don't feel that the W3C has to be "far more open". I'm
receptive to the idea that too much openness can impede progress. At the
same time, I can't even take seriously the idea that an organization as
important and high-profile as the W3C can't be significantly improved.
There's a continuum here: it's not a question of being open or closed, it's
a question of finding the optimal level of openness. Judging by the
frequency of criticism of existing procedures, the current level ain't it.

Matthew

PS: I wrote a rant over a year ago about just this topic in case someone is
interested: http://www.schemantix.com/resources/xml_2.html.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Web Philosophy
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Next by Date: Syntax Sugar and XML information models
• Previous by thread: Re: Web Philosophy
• Next by thread: RE: Web Philosophy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread