On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:03:07 PST, "James P. Salsman" said:
> is assured on almost all controversial matters.  The W3C, 
> however, constrains meaningful debate to those willing and able 
> to pay US$50,000 per year.  I agree that there was a point in 
> the early development of web standards when that constraint was 
> beneficial.  Now, however, with Netscape owned by a company

Why was it beneficial then?

> shipping MSIE, and the stagnation or regression of the core HTML 
> standards, along with the concerns raised in Norman Solomon's 
> article, I believe the time has come to return certain aspects

And why is it non-beneficial now, given the apparent complexity of
getting a product shipped (look at the current state of Mozilla)?
Let's face it - anybody who intends to ship a working browser will
need to have enough programmers that the $50K is the least of the problems.

Yes, this cuts Mozilla out unless somebody pays for their membership. On
the other hand, are there any other *real* contenders for whom $50K would
be a hardship?

> of the control of HTML to the IETF.  Even if that view is not 
> shared by the IETF, I the only way I would not be certain that 
> a debate on the topic would be healthy for the Internet communty
> would be if the W3C were to take an affirmative stand on issues 
> involving microphone upload for language instruction and 
> asyncronous audio conferencing.

Umm.. Microphone upload is the *least* of the many challenges facing
HTML at the current time.

-- 
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Operating Systems Analyst
                                Virginia Tech

Reply via email to