[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ietf
Subject: Re: HTML forms
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt ! edu
Date: 2000-03-30 21:46:29
[Download RAW message or body]
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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic