Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 549581
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
You clearly didn't read my comment.
W3C doesn't ensure that things are done 'right', 'well' or 'properly'. They only ensure that the specification is open and standardised.
It's entirely possible for a specification to be both open and standardised, and for it to be complete crap. The former two points have no baring on whether a specification is any good and it's entirely possible for a private entity to write a better (in terms of implementation) standard.
That all said, although I don't think the W3C are doing a particularly effective job, I'm not arguing that we should be getting rid of them either. I just wanted to make the point that their issues are politically related and not the pursuit of perfection.
Edited 2013-01-20 13:17 UTC