On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:35:09 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
<n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
"Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@opera.com> schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011
15:14:16 +0100:
I personally had a number of
useful technical discussions on Google+. Maybe some of those will
take place on the WHATWG Google+ page.
Excluding those without an account – a price one may or may not be
willing to pay.
wha...@whatwg.org excludes people unable to cope with large amounts of
email. #whatwg excludes people unable to cope with an ongoing stream of
text messages. forums.whatwg.org excludes people who do not want to create
yet another account and remember yet another website. There's all kinds of
people and they all have a stake in the platform. I'm interested in what
they have to say.
Maybe some people prefer to
get WHATWG pointers via Google+, just like some prefer to get it via
Twitter today.
I have no problem with that. We both know why neither one of those
platforms allows users to consume or produce ATOM or RSS feeds, though:
Lock-in. By using such a platform in spite of alternatives, you make it
more valuable. I do not see this as a desirable thing.
I agree that is problematic. But I think the value of getting feedback
outweighs that drawback.
At Twitter, I can follow people with a feed reader. G+ does not even
give me that choice. I would appreciate if notable discussions would at
least pop up on the mailing list or the blog – just like you linked to
the IRC logs. There is a pretty real risk of people missing out some.
Following everything what is going on with regards to the platform is
impossible these days. There are too many pieces. I do my best to write
some kind of summary and so do others, but you will miss out on certain
thoughts and discussions, and so do we.
When I was on G+, I saw quite some people who re-shared something
urging their readers to comment not under the post they made, but on
the linked page, so the discussion did not get fragmented. It was a sad
thing to see.
Fragmentation is an inherent feature of the web. It allows for people to
discuss an issue with their peers and come back with a better
understanding. There's absolutely no need to be in control of that, nor is
it possible, fortunately.
It's almost as great as the choice we have in audio and video codecs!
(I'm bitter, I know. Blame Apple.)
Kenny also made this comparison and I think it is faulty one. I think it
is fine for discussion to be fragmented (it already is and always will be).
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
