- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:51:21 -0800
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > It seems more than a tad late to announce that implementers trump non-implementers in the group. I am not "announcing" anything that isn't already inherent in the W3C process. The goal of the process is to come to consensus on an agreed standard for how W3C members should implement. The result is a Recommendation on how to implement. The burden is entirely carried by the implementers to do so. It is a waste of everyone's time for the W3C to recommend what the implementers have stated they will not implement. Ultimately, it is assumed (though not always the case) that the chairs will take that into account when evaluating objections when it is necessary to resolve an impasse, since otherwise the implementers will simply ignore what is produced by the WG. OTOH, regulations do trump standards and are sometimes the basis of a strong objection when they are accurately and objectively described. Likewise, identifiable security vulnerabilities or privacy disclosures are often considered the basis of strong objections (by all parties). Opinions are not in themselves strong objections, no matter how strongly they are felt or how frequently they are voiced. The reason for that should be obvious. It is hoped that everyone engaged in this process understands the need for consensus and is therefore willing to consider alternatives when an apparent impasse is reached. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:51:48 UTC