Talk:World Wide Web Consortium
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 infobox
- 2 Grammar
- 3 Increasing Developer Conformance
- 4 Sir Timothy
- 5 removed cleanup badge that provided no explanation
- 6 Criticism?
- 7 W3C Markup Validation Service merger proposal
- 8 Expansion
- 9 NPOV
- 10 Individual membership
- 11 Elections
- 12 CSS related propose move
- 13 W3C Incubator Group (XGs)
- 14 XACML
- 15 W3O
- 16 About the "Standards" section
- 17 Include references to their services
- 18 It seems like the philosophy has changed?
- 19 Multiple Issues Tag
Hi. I just noticed that in the info box, the slogan is a bit long. I think Mission is the better title for it. Any thoughts? ClEeFy 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, in the first sentence there is a full stop that doesnt need to be there, just after develop standards. (Is it meant to be there to give an example of what a standard is?) I've never edited it before so I'll just point it out! Rich
- Hi, I think you are right, and I just applied your recommendation. Don't hesitate to do it next time, and if ever you make a small mistake, plenty of others like me can fix it :-) --ClementSeveillac 08:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"The original creator of the Web"?
- That's a reasonable statement, I think. He created the software protocols and the first working system for what became the Web, and that's what gives his current stewardship of the protocols for the W3C credibility. --LDC
- And he called the resulting system 'the World Wide Web" after considering and rejecting other names so yes, he did create the original Web. --Nantonos 02:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- But he created the Web? You yourself are the man not to want to attribute inventions to just one guy, Lee! --LMS
- Perhaps it could be worded better; how about "...who created the protocols on which the Web is based."? This is one case where I think credit is really deserved, but you may be right that the language goes a bit too far. --LDC
- But he created the Web? You yourself are the man not to want to attribute inventions to just one guy, Lee! --LMS
"It's up to the manufactures to follow the recommendations which is the case for many of them." This seems a bit unrealistic. I don't know of a single browser that even completely implements HTTP (the 205 response code, in particular), much less HTML 4 (optgroup/option label, table summary, table column alignment by axis, table width by weight, img/frame longdesc, etc.), CSS, P3P, DOM, PNG, et al. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
- "It's up to the manufacturers to follow the recommendations."
Brianiac 22:58 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Increasing Developer Conformance
I removed the phrase "...however developer conformance [to standards] has improved recently." I see two problems with the statement. First, what is defined as "recent?" Second, how (and where) is such conformance measured? In other words, can anyone back up that statement with data?
I'm not opposed to the general idea the statement conveys but it is sloppy with its vagueness and lack of objective proof. I think the statement is true based on anecdotal evidence but I certainly can't prove it. If anyone can point us to some "real" (non-anecdotal) data or evidence, please share it with us!
--ElKevbo 04:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- This also implies that people pay attention and cleave to the W3C standards, which is quite debatable. --moof 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Along with several other changes, I've changed the first reference to Tim Berners-Lee in the History section from Sir Timothy "Tim" John Berners-Lee to Sir Tim Berners-Lee. The former was very much too awkward; in the Microsoft article, you wouldn't call Mr. Gates William "Bill" Henry Gates III even on the first reference, and I think that applies here even more so. Hopefully this is agreed?
(By the way, I've done quite a bit of cleanup otherwise, and I notice that there's a "cleanup" tag... I don't know if it's still necessary or not after my edits; please look over them to make sure they're proper in these contexts)--T. S. Rice 07:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
removed cleanup badge that provided no explanation
I removed the badge from February 2006. It was impossible to tell what needed cleanup.
I'm not a web developer myself, so I don't really feel comfortable adding this, since I'm not really involved or know that much. But as far as I can tell, there is a bit of criticism against the W3C, at least as far as the web goes, with HTML, XHTML, and related things. Luckily I found a blog post with links to some of these, if you're feeling lazy, or in a hurry, the last link on the list summarises things pretty well. Lijnema 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what I should think about this article here. Where is the "equality of rights"? Don't misunderstand me but there is not any one word of criticism in this article here. Please take a look in the articles about the "Web technology" from MS. Therefore I think yes, some form of criticism against the WC3 should included directly in this article. (Or remove it from "This is not W3C friendly" articles about other browsers/technology). Sometimes I think most of the wikipedia authors about WWW things are FF developers and vice versa... --Lastwebpage 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lijnema, you are completely correct. There is plenty of criticism of wc3, both general and specific. There is also a lot to be said in defense of such criticism. It's a topic of enormous importance without any central forum, to boot.Apollo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree a critique from a single person does not warrant a section and removed it. --Chealer (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Me!!! Thanks for the info, going to search!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
W3C Markup Validation Service merger proposal
The W3C Markup Validation Service article seems describe a single element of the W3C, and doesn't seem to have much room for significant development; I think it would make sense to just merge it onto the W3C page. —Emufarmers(T/C) 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree as I think it's important to separate the organization from the services and tools it provides. Merging the articles would prevent referencing the service in articles like Validator. I suppose W3C Markup Validation Service is not the only articles about services and tools provided by the W3C so if we decide to merge them, then all other related articles should be merged too, if there are as stub as that one. Instead of merging them I think the articles should be improved :
- Reference W3C related articles in the main one
- Improve the related articles : services, tools...
- Create a category for W3C related articles
- What would be the benefits of merging the articles ?
- Last but not least I'm not sure this comment follow the Wikipedia merging guidelines, its title doesn't indicate it nor reference the articles to merge. --Goa103 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would still be possible to link to information on the validator through a fragment identifier. As it stands, the W3C article itself has very little information about the services the W3C provides; it doesn't even have a link to the validator or its article. This article is mostly a history and working statement of the W3C: It needs to talk about perception of the W3C and the things that the W3C is actually doing. Merging articles like W3C Markup Validation Service and Web Accessibility Initiative could help accomplish this; if those articles truly have enough meat to be developed separately, then they should at least have their own sections in the W3C article, with links to them as "main articles" on those topics, rather than a big heap of "see also" links.
- I do not think they should be merged. Expand the main article and link. Zab 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think merging would be just fine, as Emufarmers points out, it's a small article with little room for expansion, and I think would fit just fine in the main W3C article. --Lijnema 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as it's quite small, I too think that it should be merged with the main W3C article, though it doesn't bother me if it isn't. But I think it'd be a good idea as the information will be all together then. Think777 10:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it is very small and even that, if it stayed as is, it might be better merged. I certainly think a squib and link to the separate Validation Service Page is needed in the wc3 article. However, unlike the OP, I can see significant room for expansion.Apollo (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I say 'No' --Robin Kerrison 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why? --Lijnema 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer not to have them merged. Following a discussion in the Greek wikipedia's village pump I was looking specifically for the W3C markup validation service and I was glad to find it on its own. --FocalPoint 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think they should be merged. I was about to edit the main W3C article when I noticed the merger proposal, and thought I'd add my two cents. Although the Markup Validation service article is small, it has the potential for major expansion and could easily become an extremely long and complex page. (I may decide to expand it, myself.)
- I use the Validation Service frequently. One does not need to know anything about, or even care about, the Wc3 to use it. It's a standalone web application. The situation here is comparable to an article on Windows Vista compared to an article on Microsoft Corp. Appropriate information on the Validation Service would Include primarily technical and "how-to" information. If this was in the wc3 article, it would create a tangent just too far off the central information about the Consortium. Wikipedia would be better served by having a (potentially) highly technical article separated from the much more general, political, and organizational information about the Wc3. Another analogy might be the State of California and California criminal law.
- I hope this helps. My feelings aren't strong -- I'd be happy either way -- but I just see two very different types of articles that would be better separated. Apollo (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- This merger debate has now gone on for nine months. It is pretty obvious from the comments above that there is no consensus to merge these two articles. Does anyone have anything more to add before the merger tags are removed? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given the extremely long time over which this debate has run and the lack of agreement to merge the articles, I will go ahead and remove the merger tags. I have also expanded the W3C Markup Validation Service article, added some logos and a reference to it. Please feel free to help out and add more text and references! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. I think it'll confuse the reader coming to check what W3C is. Each branch of the W3C has it's own article and the validation services is an important branch. YCC 09:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to undertake some expansion of this article, and I do so with a lot of trepidation as my acquaintance with the w3c is only moderate. I've been exposed to it as a web developer frequently. My only credentials are familiarity with a number of technologies they oversee and complete neutrality about any potential issues. I hope that if I say something moronic, it will goad a reader into further expansion and clarification ;-) Apollo (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly feel that the pluses and minuses of W3C are extremely important and within the purview of the Wikipedia mission. I've included the beginning of one common criticism -- domination by large outfits -- and I'm hoping that someone can write a good rebuttal. Hopefully this won't generate too much emotion. My personal feelings about the subject are definitely pro-W3C but I'm not blind to some major shortcomings.
The article states:
Members include only businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, and governmental entities. There is no provision for individual membership.
What does it mean, that currently there are no individual members, or that the individual membership is not allowed by W3C rules?
In fact,  says:
Can I join W3C as an individual? Yes, by following the same procedure available to organizations. W3C does not have a class of Membership tailored to or priced for individuals. Indeed, the Membership fee is relatively small compared to the investment being made by the organization. Our processes are designed for organizational participation and we do not have the support structure to handle large numbers of individual members. Public participation in W3C is possible in a number of ways other than as an individual Member. Note that academics who are experts in a field may ask the Working Group Chair to be invited to join the Working Group as an Invited Expert.
Propose move Internet Explorer box model bug to CSS box model problem (Discuss here: Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug#Requested move 2) --Voidvector (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
W3C Incubator Group (XGs)
A mention about the incubator group is to my opinion important.
About how each idea is discussed, the technology used is an advanced example of online collaboration.
To the best of my knowledge, XACML is the work of OASIS, not W3C
Can somebody explain me, what Tim Berners-Lee create in the beginning of the web? The W3C and the W3o --> what is the w3o? why is there no wikipedia article? mabdul 08:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
About the "Standards" section
The last section shows a list of standards.
1) Is there a one to one relationship between working groups and standard? Or could one working group be working on several different standards (not considering different verions of the same standard)?
2) It says "W3C/IETF Standards (over Internet protocol suite):". I guess it is meant that the list of protocols are application layer protocols, right? I think that all the standards developed by W3C are application layer standards, right? So first of all, most readers will simply not understand it as it is written now. If the IETF standards are left out, then this "over Internet protocol suite" can be deleted altogether.
3) IETF might have developed many standards relevant to WWW, but should these really be mentioned in this article? At least those should be marked in parenthesis as being from IETF.
4) Why is there no HTML5 working group in the list? I think there has to be one.
Include references to their services
The w3c does a lot, including verifying code. This is not mentioned in the article.
It seems like the philosophy has changed?
Is my memory faulty? It feels like the original WWW and html philosophy and idea of "open" included total sharing. If one *needed* exclusory property rights, (copyright etc,) one simply did not put it on the Web, and indeed html made it difficult to keep images, sounds, etc from being downloaded. (Which does not suggest that copyrighted content was NOT published on the Web—nor even slowed down.) The common exception was no-edit-no-copy PDF popular with business, and nobody minded much, recognizing that some had legitimate needs, and it was not HTML nor a website, and so forth. Loosely; copyrighted content was NOT protectable by the medium, but by the courts etc, which loosely/informally translated into: Feel free to share the Web's wealth, just no unauthorized mass duplication nor commercial usage.
While the many benefits of copyright are part of our (American) corporate upbringing and training, near-taboo unarticulated Anti-copyright arguments suggest downsides that I'll not repeat here, but many seem worthy. I presume these reasons were the reasons for the original WWW and html philosophy and that "concept of open," plus the Web's remarkable structurally unregulate-able format, lead to the Internet's unencumbered growth. "Structurally unregulatable" was nearly a WWW regulation!
No more. Long gone are the days we could assume "right click to download" an object. But if that object was needed, it could be dug out with some effort by looking at the HTML. But the last few weeks, no more. For the first time I found high-bit ASCII machine language (not just script) code in a Web page. (What is THAT called!?)
Is my memory faulty? Has the original WWW and html philosophy and idea of quasi-enforced "structurally unprotectable" sharing changed, —and fairly drastically? If so, this should be in the article. (...is this like the Econ Nobel Prize winning thesis: the regulators will always be captured by the regulated? Regulatory capture) ...Or of milking; public costs → private profits?
--188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
What about W3 Schools? Are they part of the consortium?
Multiple Issues Tag
I came to look for some information for an unrelated matter and was shocked at the state of this article. Below are the issues I see and the reasons for each issue listed in the MI tag.
- One Source - While there is technically more than 1 source, those other sources only address 2 assertions in the article. All of the remaining text is entirely sourced from W3C's website and many of those are general links that do not support the claims made. Even if they did, they would be WP:Primary, which isn't really necessary for such a well known and written about organization.
- Off-topic - The bulk of the information does not discuss W3C itself. Specification Maturation (all sub-sections) are related to processes the W3C implements for making a standard which is of limited relevance. A single section might be useful if the article addressed what the W3C does, but that is almost non-existent. Membership, can be on topic in terms of composition of members and perhaps generally who can become a member. Details on the process, fees, or visits to w3.org is off-topic to the article itself are questionable. History, specific goals and current information are off-topic to this section (though could be moved to other sections if properly cited)
- Copy Edit - the tone is inconsistent, some content is encyclopedic, some uses peacock terms, and overall it has a very awkward flow
- Standards section - I came very close to deleting this section entirely. None of the links are to articles on W3C standards, they instead link to the item being standardized. There is no relationship established between W3C and these articles. No citations are provided indicating W3 has anything to do with them or the authority from which provides standards for them.
- Context - History section, what's being "host" all about other than trivial information? W3C created offices around the world but why does a reader need to know this let alone each individual country? Administration section - what is this for?
- General - Generally the article lacks fundamental, reliably sourced, information on the organization, its goals/mandate, activities (historical or current), etc.
I'm of two minds at the moment, the "no info is better than bad info" mindset which would mean gutting the article or the "don't destroy what you aren't willing to rebuild" mindset. The latter is winning out since I don't have time at the moment. Hopefully there are others who do and can improve things. :) JMJimmy (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)