4 ms·

It results in a standard for describing them so that browsers can properly select the right one, or ignore all of them. That's less ad-hoc than the alternatives

It results in a standard for describing them so that browsers can properly select the right one, or ignore all of them. That's less ad-hoc than the alternatives.

nitrogen 11y ago
But it does very little, if anything, for the open web, and either needs total top to bottom specification for open implementation, or doesn't belong in a web standard.
- fixermark 11y ago
  That may be true, but it is irrelevant. I don't know why you believe that the technologies under the W3C web standards need be open. The standards themselves need be open (they're published, after all), but the technologies underpinning them? Checking W3C's website, their guidelines for implementations appear to be "W3C issues a call for implementations as part of standardization and welcomes public participation" [https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation]. Nothing in the formal standards process [https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html] appears to require all implementations be "open," and that assumption flies in the face of previous legacy standards (<img> when .gif was an accepted file format but still encumbered by patent, the <object> and <embed> standards that specify closed-binary plugins to side-load). While it'd be nice if it worked the way you described, it seems that the standard as currently codified (including one specified "dummy" open reference implementation) is all that is needed.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Li... (Royalty Free) https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles (Web for All, Web on Everything)

4 ms·

It results in a standard for describing them so that browsers can properly select the right one, or ignore all of them. That's less ad-hoc than the alternatives

by fixermark 11y ago

It results in a standard for describing them so that browsers can properly select the right one, or ignore all of them. That's less ad-hoc than the alternatives.

nitrogen 11y ago
But it does very little, if anything, for the open web, and either needs total top to bottom specification for open implementation, or doesn't belong in a web standard.
- fixermark 11y ago
  That may be true, but it is irrelevant. I don't know why you believe that the technologies under the W3C web standards need be open. The standards themselves need be open (they're published, after all), but the technologies underpinning them? Checking W3C's website, their guidelines for implementations appear to be "W3C issues a call for implementations as part of standardization and welcomes public participation" [https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation https://www.w3.org/participate/implementation]. Nothing in the formal standards process [https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html] appears to require all implementations be "open," and that assumption flies in the face of previous legacy standards (<img> when .gif was an accepted file format but still encumbered by patent, the <object> and <embed> standards that specify closed-binary plugins to side-load). While it'd be nice if it worked the way you described, it seems that the standard as currently codified (including one specified "dummy" open reference implementation) is all that is needed.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Li... (Royalty Free) https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles (Web for All, Web on Everything)