Hello,
David Baron has written up a blog story titled "The
W3C" arguing that the W3C member companies have no
interest in a free and open web for all and instead
prefer W3C standards that push closed, controlled,
environments (where interoperability doesn't matter)
and where the W3C member companies can charge money
for the client offering.
David writes:
SVG and XForms weren't even designed for the Web.
SVG was designed by graphic designers who wish the
fact that Web pages aren't printed on paper would go
away and by mobile phone businesses who want vector
graphics for sending non-Web content to their mobile
phones. Never mind that it ignores one of the key
architectural principles of the Web. The main
arguments for XForms always seem to relate to
“intranet” forms (where companies can earn money), not
Web forms (where they can't earn nearly as much, since
they can't charge for clients).
The W3C community apparently decided years ago that
HTML (as distinguished from XHTML) was not the future
of the Web.
More @ http://dbaron.org/log/2004-06#d20040609
What's your take on it? Do you agree with David
Baron that the W3C is now paralysed by commerical
interests and that to move on we need a new forum? Or
do you think David Baron is a conspiracy nutcase?
- Gerald
-------------------
Gerald Bauer
XUL Alliance | http://xul.sourceforge.net
United XAML | http://xaml.sourceforge.net
The Thinlet World | http://thinlet.blog-city.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
xul-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
