Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>This is the argument I have a real problem with. If the W3C is closed >simply so that the member organisations can get a "leg-up" over, say, >someone wanting to implement an open source equivalent of said >specification then something is really wrong with the system. The W3C is closed since you have to pay to get in. >How can this >situation end up with anything *but* competing implementations, rather >than interoperable, compatible implementations? Surely that's because the W3C isn't in the implementation business? >> Simply, the internet is not and never has been, free. > >Maybe you got there after I did. I remember a pretty free >internet, when companies didn't even know what the internet >*was* (and I'm not even very old!). I don't remember a free internet. I remember an internet I didn't think I was paying for, but I know better now. Subsidised maybe, not free. -Bill de hÓra
|
