5 ms·
The W3C's draft vision statement [0] clearly states: > Aim to reduce centralization in Web architecture, minimizing single points of failure and single points
by btown 3y ago
The W3C's draft vision statement [0] clearly states:
> Aim to reduce centralization in Web architecture, minimizing single points of failure and single points of control.
IMO it is entirely in scope for, and part of the responsibility of, the W3C to introduce a specification that explicitly forbids user agents from implementing Web Environment Integrity or any similar system as currently drafted.
One might say that the members' conflicts of interest make it likely that they will abdicate this responsibility, but that doesn't make it any less their role!
[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles
- toast0 3y agoThey don't have power to enforce specificiations, so what's the point of a negative specification?
- JeremyNT 3y agoIt's a signal if nothing else. Maybe Google cares, maybe not, but there's no sense in having a spineless standards body that just turns around and says that the spec is whatever Google implements in Chrome.
- tptacek 3y agoThe W3C has no ability to "forbid" anything. You're going to find professional organizations resistant to undertakings that beclown themselves. W3C's statute and importance is improved when they publish things that the industry implements. That is the only mechanism they have to find impact. They are not the Internet police. I know this is fuzzy-seeming because of all the "MUST NOT"'s in standards language, but it's not really fuzzy at all.