> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:40:06 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management
>
> On 2014-01-15 20:37, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
> > We need to defend the *contemporary* web
>
> Why?
That is the legal advice I received. There are precedents in which the
*contemporary* environment justified outcomes in court cases. We may well have
a similar case: a contemporary open web ecosystem without DRM or mis-features
into which some business interests have gate crashed the conversation, kicked
in the walls, and claim it's theirs, and they might attempt to use laws in bad
faith to persecute. Why give up this defense. Control the rhetoric to
support our position: the W3C has recently changed their HTML WG charter and
their interpretation of the principles of the web looks very weak to me - lets
just dispute their decisions, make a case that the open web conversation is not
compatible with their principles, and continue with the open web conversation
without them. A 'fork' of their recently changed charter and principles
might give it more credibility than it deserves.
cheers
Fred
