etc. If any of them pulled out, it would be crisis time for the W3C.
I think Berners-Lee is looking out for the existence of the W3C, under
the guise of waving the standards flag. As far as WebStandards.org
goes, unless they are just following the gospel of Berners-Lee,
their position is a total mystery to me.
So, bowing was a bad word...compromise is probably a better word. It
may be necessary, but I still don't see how one new parameter is such
an issue, just releasing an HTML 4.02 spec with the new parameter
would be a hell of a lot easier.
The accessibility issues is another straw man, as if years old, non
maintained flash, quicktime, applets, etc, have any worthwhile content
in them in the first place. If someone was that worried about
accessibility, they wouldn't use those formats anyway. Flash may be an
exception, but it's an exception in a lot of areas, as it's probably
the only major plugin that also happens to be the best available
implementation of it's technology.
They are all just dancing around the real issue, which is the main W3C
members all have proprietary plugins that would be damaged by the
patent workarounds.
--
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, November 14, 2003, 5:50:19 PM, you wrote:
JD> None of those companies sign Berners-Lee's paycheck either.
JD> And the opinions he expressed in that letter are not new for him - he's
JD> been singing the same song for 10 years.
JD> "Bowing" indicates that he personally feels differently on the issue -
JD> from everything he's ever written before he definitely doesn't seem to
JD> be bowing.
JD> Read anything he's written on the sematic web or his opinions on WYSIWYG
JD> editors (he's for them, by the way) - this is not a new stance for him.
JD> Jim Davis
JD> -----Original Message-----
JD> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JD> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:06 PM
JD> To: CF-Community
JD> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
JD> I personally don't like to take anyone's word at anything, until I see
JD> it, it's suspect. I read the letter, and on the surface it seems like
JD> BS to me. I think he is bowing to the main concerns of the W3C major
JD> members without thinking about the consequences.
JD> I can't blame him for it, I would do the same thing, but MS, Apple,
JD> and MM, don't sign my paycheck, so I don't have to sniff their BS.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
