3 ms·
This isn't accurate; notably, the WHATWG is the standards body that is actually open to public input (see https://whatwg.org/faq#process https://whatwg.org/faq#
by domenicd 9y ago
This isn't accurate; notably, the WHATWG is the standards body that is actually open to public input (see https://whatwg.org/faq#process https://whatwg.org/faq#process). Whereas to give input to the W3C, you have to pay membership fees (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees; https://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees; between $2250 and $77K depending on company size for the US). This latter model is commonly referred to as "pay-to-play" standardization.
- lambda 9y agoYou can give input to the W3C without that, but yeah, it's the input from the paying members that counts the most. Additionally, the W3C has some private mailing lists, does private working group meetings, and so on. So yeah, the WHATWG is a lot more open when it comes to input.
- gsnedders 9y ago> Additionally, the W3C has some private mailing lists, does private working group meetings, and so on. For all the web platform stuff (I don't know about the semweb and digital publishing side of things), you can basically ignore the existence of the private mailing lists (they get basically no traffic, and people like me start screaming whenever anyone tries to have a technical discussion there). I'd rather they didn't exist, but realistically they're not a barrier to participation. The F2F meetings and telecons are more problematic (because both are inherently exclusionary, either in time or in travel), but those are at least publicly minuted and any resolution from them can be overturned.