Benjie
Erik MoellerThis is a big deal:
The W3C, founded in 1994 by web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, has quit X and declared the fediverse to be their primary social media channel. Follow them at: @w3c
The future of the open web is .. the open web.
World Basement Classic@eloquence @w3c Shame about them backing proprietary DRM in browsers but we'll take the occasional win when it happens.
Yep. Lots of folks who really care about the open web are on the fediverse. Hopefully being truly present here will also connect the org more deeply with these concerns, alongside the inevitable lobbying from big tech & big entertainment.
jonny (nonvenomous)@eloquence
If the fedi becomes the new w3c mailing list I will be so pleased
If the fedi becomes the new w3c mailing list I will be so pleased
The Manchurian Idiot@jonny @eloquence httpRange-14 coming to Mastodon soon
Flüpke@eloquence why is it?
W3C does not stand for an open web. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions
@eloquence ever tried participating in the W3C standardization process? Be rich or go home!
@eloquence leaving X / Twitter is the only reasonable thing to do, if you want to preserve any brand reputation, that might be left. It’s not „a big deal“ to leave this burning garbage pile behind.
As much as I'd want to agree with you, IMO we're not quite there _yet_. Too many big institutions are still having a firm foothold on X for it to truly impact brand reputation.
But every domino piece helps, and W3C is a big one. Given how many others are happily posting away in Musk's nazi bar, they get some karma points at least in my book.
I'm paying close attention (monitoring big exits), so take that for whatever you think it's worth.
Philip McGrath@fluepke @eloquence There are certainly grounds to critique the W3C, but we are writing these messages using ActivityPub, a W3C standard that has definitely advanced the open web and manifestly is not dominated by “rich” interests.
@LiberalArtist @eloquence W3C also made Decentralized Identifiers (self-sovereign identity blockchain bullshit) a "web standard" that the European Union will likely force upon us with the EUDI-Wallet.
In Germany, @Lilith and I caused the #IDWallet to fail after some basic IT security research.
This technology will discriminate minorities, enforce borders on the internet and be used for mining PII.
It is the opposite of an open web.
I got really upset observing some blockchain startup hipsters with the necessary money hijack the W3C standardization procedure to give their terrible stupid ideas the legitimacy of a "web standard".
And there is nothing you, as an individual, can do. As an individual you can neither read the WG's mailinglist nor can you participate in any discussions … or you pay the money and become a member^w lobbyist.
That sucks and is undemocratic!
The W3C is just the capitalist internet's henchman. And they're very open about this. It's right there in the first sentence of their mission statement:
> W3C is leading the Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web.
Lenny@fluepke @LiberalArtist @eloquence We can totally criticise the W3C in many, many areas but let's clarify a few important things:
- A ton of WG/CG mailing lists are open: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ It is also possible to participate there.
- Many WG/CGs use public GH repos and one can make "substantial contributions" by becoming an Invited Expert. This system is far from perfect, obviously, but it does exist.
- Many of the W3C CGs are open and everyone can join.
With that out of the way, can you reference the WG or CG you're talking about which denied public access to the mailing list and severely restricted individual contributions?
Edit: You're probably referring to https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg Their mailing list is publicly available here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/ Spec repo is here: https://github.com/w3c/did-core and creating issues is allowed (this is how I got invited to another group btw).
@f09fa681 try getting invited (and not thrown out immediately) as an expert after just destroying their first large-scale nationwide DID roll-out. Good luck.
@fluepke If that doesn't make you an expert, what does? Have you tried?
Can't speak for the DID people because I dealt with another WG but I can tell you, they weren't exactly known to be very open either but I still got invited. Sometimes it's nice to be surprised. Not all people who work in such WGs are mindless sycophants which close themselves off towards critics, even if they work for a company or towards a goal with questionable ethics.
Sergey Shandar@fluepke @LiberalArtist @eloquence @Lilith I wish, Mastodon used DID instead of a location-based identity with vendor lock-in.
@functionalscript use your DID how and where you wish, but do not implement state issued identities with it. There’s better technology for that, which prevents over-identification and all the other problems to it.
@fluepke I don't argue with that. A state is centralized, so it doesn't require DIDs. But I wouldn't blame W3C for having DID standards. IMHO, DIDs are long overdue in the industry. If we had DID for twitter accounts, we wouldn't need to lose all our data and contacts. Data and identities shouldn't belong to social network providers and servers.
Mima-sama@fluepke #W3C has pretty much become a rubberstamp for the #Google-led cartel that is the #WHATWG. An organization that doesn't give smaller browsers like #PaleMoon, #LadyBird, and #Lynx a voice in the writing of specs for web standards like #HTML5 and #CSS3 does not deserve support, and should not be seen as an ally of the #openweb.
@eloquence
@eloquence
@mima @fluepke @eloquence Can you elaborate on WHATWG? I did participate in both W3C and WHATWG groups and the latter was definitely open and friendly towards individuals and their contributions.
@fluepke @mima @eloquence I meant that I don't understand the criticism of the WHATWG and would like it to get elaborated. In contrast, I'd certainly understand why there's an issue with the W3C (except perhaps the Community Groups).
@f09fa681 Issue #552 of whatwg/html pretty much explains for itself what it means for contributions which don't get "enough implementer interest" in the #WHATWG despite having a significant #webdev grassroots support.
This obsession in making sure at least two "implementers" have the feature baked into their codebases is frankly bull and is one of the factors of why we have such a #Google-biased #web. Theoretically it's there so that every feature would be certain that there are players backing and seeing that feature being useful and good for the #openweb, but in reality it has become Google's veto in most cases, with the popular
This obsession in making sure at least two "implementers" have the feature baked into their codebases is frankly bull and is one of the factors of why we have such a #Google-biased #web. Theoretically it's there so that every feature would be certain that there are players backing and seeing that feature being useful and good for the #openweb, but in reality it has become Google's veto in most cases, with the popular
@mima @fluepke @eloquence Thanks for sharing that example. Yes, it's a pity that the developer feedback has not been factored in there.
That being said, Google never truly cared about the rule to have at least two separate implementations (which has most likely been adopted from the IETF). This becomes obvious by looking at https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/. They just force APIs if they so desire by market power, even if those remain in draft status indefinitely.
If WHATWG is a catalyst for the Google-biased web due to the "two implementations" rule, then so is the W3C and the IETF and we should look at standardisation bodies in general. But is antagonising them due to that (perhaps misguided) rule going to help the #openweb? 🤷♀️ Because I know for a fact that there's a ton of people working in these groups with good intent towards the open web.
@fluepke @eloquence Yes, I did. From experience, becoming an Invited Expert is simple enough and cost me nothing. (Doesn't mean I like the system.)
@f09fa681 @eloquence as if the startup hipsters would invite someone who had just destroyed one of their flagship projects 😂
The secret mailing list just emphasizes their wish not to be distracted with critical thinking.
Steve's Place@eloquence @w3c Yay!!! I can't count how many times they've saved my butt when working on a project, lol.
herbert@w3c @eloquence took them quite a while, actually,
World Wide Web ConsortiumWe've been on Mastodon since 2017 (see our profile: https://w3c.social/@w3c).
We are just no longer are on both X/Twitter and Mastodon
World Wide Web Consortium (@[email protected])
1.62K Posts, 140 Following, 35.2K Followers · The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established in 1994 by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, to develop interoperable standards to lead the Web to its full potential. We are an international multi-stakeholder community where member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to build a Web based on the principles of accessibility, internationalization, privacy and security. Please be more curious than critical. Your interactions go to real people who care and do their best 🙏
William Bell@w3c @hvdsomp @eloquence Glad to hear it. I do not understand why publicly owned organisations like the BBC stay on X and give free marketing and Product to Musk.
Matunos@eloquence @w3c and without even a request for comments?
Urtzi Odriozola Lizaso
Score2@eloquence @w3c Now they can get ignored here, too.
xs4me2It is indeed, an a great gesture…
stonedonkey 🕹️🎮👾@eloquence @w3c more of this from everyone left there please.. well most everyone...
@eloquence @w3c That's actually really cool. I just followed, for the record.
IntenseWebs@eloquence @w3c Will tell you same thing I told them. No! Everyone is crying they can't censor on X anymore.
No, thank you. Fediverse is all the censorship lefties that love echo-chambers expounding about how great they are.
Alex 
Bear Jew 2.0 
1994: W3C is founded.
2018: W3C publishes ActivityPub Standard
2023: W3C encourages people to use ActivityPub by moving from X to Mastodon 😃
Flutter Cuddles@eloquence @w3c did they give a reason why?
Luke Harby
Christiane Gante@eloquence @w3c Cool. Thanks for the follow-recommendation.
Now I can't not think of an interview I once saw, where Tim Berners-Lee was introduced as "web developer"... 🤭 Which is true in a way... him being THE web developer 🤣
Now I can't not think of an interview I once saw, where Tim Berners-Lee was introduced as "web developer"... 🤭 Which is true in a way... him being THE web developer 🤣
Cenbe@eloquence @w3c At first I thought you meant they'd switched to Wayland.
Caspar C. Mierau@eloquence @w3c A bit puzzling to read this now … as they … invented ActivityPub :)
James Just JamesI'm glad they're on a more open platform, but the w3c still has a lot of work to do to gain my trust back after putting DRM into an "open web" standard.
Besides, how are they even relevant when Google just adds whatever they want to Chrome and that's how things happen?
Bernhard Lill 🎙️📲 ☑️@eloquence danke für den Tip! :)
John Manoogian III