> On Sep 23, 3:39pm, Benjamin C. W. Sittler wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Standards, Work Groups, and Reality Checks: A Radical Proposa
> }
> } Destroying the WG would be a great loss to the WWW, both individual and
> } corporate users, especially in the long view. We need a truly versatile
> } language, but we probably shouldn't wait for that before we
> } standardize something.
>
> This group has no effect on the language that is actually used in
> products. Even when we publish a standard, there is no incentive
> for exist products to conform to it unless the standard exactly
> defines the behavior already in use on all products, in which case
> the "standard" simply becomes a collection of descriptions of what
> various products do (different for each product, of course).
This is simply not true. Several existing products look to W3C for
language specification (i.e. Lynx, Arena, w3-mode, and several authoring
tools.) The incentive for conformance is obvious: conform, and more
people can read your pages. This is especially true now that several user
agents support HTML editing.
> The letters from w3 made it quite clear that the "job" of this group
> is to suggest minor changes in features being added by big players
> in the market, and it's also clear that if the companies don't like
> the changes, they certainly won't make them (REL/REV). The primary
> function of this group has become to simply exist, so that companies
> can claim to be using the "standards process." They're using it all
> right.
It's time to stick our necks out, and stop suggesting minor changes in
proposals submitted by the big players. Instead, we need to propose that
the major companies implement features from HTML 3 and stop promoting
their own nonstandard "HTML". We can enforce this by refusing to add
their extensions to the standard.
> People have expressed the view that we should press on with the process
> but haven't addressed the problem that this isn't a standards process
> anymore. It's a group of companies making their own decisions, then
> dumping poorly thought-through standards on the group. The group can't
> refuse to include them, because the companies will just stick them in
> anyway and all documents will continue to be nonstandard. So no matter
> what the extention is, the group's hand is forced by the w3 companies.
We should stick our necks out while we still have a head. We need to
publish a standard, regardless of what the "big names" tell us to do. If
they cut our heads off it's no big loss anyhow, because we're losing
ground by inches every day...
> I would very much like a standard as well. I've refused to use Netscape
> because I don't like what the company is doing and I believe strongly
> in standardization, but people look at me like I'm from Mars when I tell
> them I still use Mosaic. But the only way this group is going to be
> able to produce a standard is if one company forces the others out of
> business, creating one "standard." The real process simply isn't in the
> interest of the profitability of the companies.
There's no reason anymore for the WG *not* to ignore the corporate bottom
line.
-- Benjamin C. W. SittlerWe're going to have to shit or get off the fan. Gerould Smith, at a meeting of the ANSI BASIC standards committee, ca. 1977, reported by Guy Haas