5 ms·
I think the more accurate view is that the W3C is dead and has been for a long time. At this point it is just a mechanism for oligopolists to collude with each
by saas_co_de 9y ago
I think the more accurate view is that the W3C is dead and has been for a long time.
At this point it is just a mechanism for oligopolists to collude with each other to maintain their dominant market positions.
It is funny to watch how something like Web Crypto takes years to implement, even though the technology is ancient, but if Google wants a new feature to spy on users it will be released next week.
- vog 9y ago*> the W3C is dead and has been for a long time. This. With all due respect to the great vision of Tim Berners-Lee, as well as his historical achievements: The W3C has turned into an anti-pattern of what to expect from a standardization organisation. In some sense, the W3C standards are the opposite of the RFCs by the IETF. (and ISO is somewhere in between - they do produce over-engineered crap, but their signal-to-noise ratio is still tolerable, even though it hurts)
- cat199 9y ago> In some sense, the W3C standards are the opposite of the RFCs by the IETF. sorry to burst the bubble here but.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Address_Redundancy_Protocol#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Address_Redundancy_Prot...
- vog 9y agoGood point! Well, I did not intend to say IETF does everything right, but their signal-to-noise ratio is better by orders of magnitude. Also, I'm under the impression that IETF learned from that utter failure and took measures to prevent similar mistakes in the future (please correct me if I'm wrong). I did not observe that W3C actually learned anything from their mistakes, but produced less and less useful things over time (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).
- hmm_really 9y agoWell please provide some examples of what you explicitly mean, and then we can see if your wrong or not.