Three W3C review abstentions
L. David Baron
W3C Advisory Committee, since as far as I can tell these documents
are not relevant to Mozilla:
Review of Proposed Recommendation:
Ink Markup Language (InkML)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-InkML-20110510/
Review of Proposed Recommendation:
Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0
https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-ccxml-20110510/
Review of Working Group Charter:
SPARQL Working Group
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Jun/0000.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/05/sparql-charter
(I think it's worth explicitly abstaining when it's something we're
not interested in rather than just failing to respond, both because
it indicates that we didn't just forget to respond, and because
there's been some discussion as to whether failure to respond is
equivalent to explicit abstention or equivalent to support.)
If anyone feels that we should respond in some other way, please let
me know.
-David
--
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Cameron McCormack
> I've explicitly abstained from three reviews that were sent to the
> W3C Advisory Committee, since as far as I can tell these documents
> are not relevant to Mozilla:
>
> Review of Proposed Recommendation:
> Ink Markup Language (InkML)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-InkML-20110510/
It’s perhaps late in the piece to be asking this, but is it that we feel
representing handwriting input in any particular way is not a use case
we think needs solving for the Web platform, or that it might be but we
have just not had people following this Working Group or working on
implementing anything related?
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
L. David Baron
I don't see why it needs solving for the Web platform, nor have we
had anyone following the group. Also, the little I've seen of the
working group involved has also made it seem much more like a
research effort than a standardization effort, which makes me think
it's likely not to be good as a standard.
Justin Dolske
> I don't see why it needs solving for the Web platform, nor have we
> had anyone following the group. Also, the little I've seen of the
> working group involved has also made it seem much more like a
> research effort than a standardization effort, which makes me think
> it's likely not to be good as a standard.
What's the significance of abstaining? If we don't think things are
useful/relevant the web, should we have a more forceful "no" position?
Similarly, what's it mean for something to be "more like a research
effort"? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with W3C process, but is it normal
for WGs to engage in research tasks? And, again, if we feel this is not
good standards-material, do we need to be more explicit than an abstention?
Justin
L. David Baron
> On 6/9/11 3:01 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> >I don't see why it needs solving for the Web platform, nor have we
> >had anyone following the group. Also, the little I've seen of the
> >working group involved has also made it seem much more like a
> >research effort than a standardization effort, which makes me think
> >it's likely not to be good as a standard.
>
> What's the significance of abstaining? If we don't think things are
> useful/relevant the web, should we have a more forceful "no"
> position?
Well, for a start, there's no "no" option other than an objection,
since the W3C operates by consensus.
The reality of objecting is that anyone who objects will get a phone
call and be argued with until they concede. This is the case
because W3C has a set of members who *are* interested in this work
(some of which may have joined W3C solely for it), and as a result
W3C pays some portion of its staff to work on it. I suppose if
somebody did object and refuse to give in, they'd have two options:
(1) declare consensus anyway (since consensus doesn't require
unanimity), the more likely option, or (2) actually listen, and kick
the work out of W3C. This would mean it would most likely continue
elsewhere, but be separately funded. At the very least, this would
mean making a lot of enemies, and would probably make it harder to
work with W3C in general. If I did want to pick a fight like this,
this one probably isn't where I'd start.
> Similarly, what's it mean for something to be "more like a research
> effort"?
Well, I mean that I think they're trying to build technology that
hasn't been done before, rather than modeling specifications off of
things that have already been built (whether for the Web or
elsewhere). I tend to think that sort of thing tends to fail most
of the time, just as most software projects don't succeed, most
businesses don't succeed, etc., and I tend to think that
standardization should usually happen after demand for the
technology (and for interoperability) has been demonstrated.
> Admittedly, I'm not familiar with W3C process, but is it
> normal for WGs to engage in research tasks?
I think it is somewhat unusual.