Talk:World Wide Web Consortium

message: 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)
thread_title: infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: This also implies that people pay attention and cleave to the W3C standards, which is quite debatable. --moof 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing Developer Conformance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sir Timothy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I agree a critique from a single person does not warrant a section and removed it. --Chealer (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Me!!! Thanks for the info, going to search!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.240.217 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: 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.
Other approaches to how to accomplish a good NPOV section are welcome.  Let's do a good job on this and not get bogged down in partisanship.Apollo (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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.
--195.91.224.2 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual membership 

message: Is there any controversy out there related to a lack of elected representation, given the impact of W3C decisions (as with ISO, etc.)? Thanks, Brettz9 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CSS related propose move 

message: 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. 
The words W3C Incubator Group has been linked in the Emotion Markup Language article.YCC 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3C Incubator Group (XGs) 

message: To the best of my knowledge, XACML is the work of OASIS, not W3C
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xacml
I thus remove XACML from the set of W3C standards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baojie (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  XACML 

message: 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. 
85.97.21.117 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Standards" section 

message: The w3c does a lot, including verifying code.  This is not mentioned in the article.
:If you have references as per WP:V this can be added! - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include references to their services 

message: 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?  --68.127.93.1 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems like the philosophy has changed?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues Tag 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—2600:1700:E6A0:A220:C1D:DCBD:B5F2:A632 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: Does this page need to be updated with information about what’s happening with W3C becoming a nonprofit after MIT’s withdrawal? Khari05 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We currently have no information ion that. Do you have a reference that can be cited? - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have this link but it's a primary source and would go against wikipedia guidelines: https://mastodon.social/@robin/109524929231432913 Khari05 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Social media posts are generally not WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: good point. I saw that there was some tension leading to this year but it seems like it transitioned successfully Khari05 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine to use as a ref to update the article from. See WP:PRIMARY. - Ahunt (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3C / MIT conflict