|
|
|
|
|
|
by hackuser
3393 days ago
|
|
|
> could W3C make a stand and just because DRM is a bad thing for users, could just refuse to work on DRM and push back wherever they could on it? Well, that would again not have any effect, because the W3C is not a court or an enforcement agency. It has an effect because the W3C has authority and influence, even though it doesn't have power, and by supporting DRM it communicates that it likes non-open technology. It undermines very many people who have advocated for open technology; if even the W3C says it's not important, then why would anyone listen to me? (I realize that the W3C may not be saying exactly that, but those subtleties are lost in public communication.) As an extreme example (because it comes to mind), Martin Luther King had no real power; he held no office. But he did have influence and authority. If he said that civil rights weren't important after all, then it would undermine many people who sacrificed a lot to advocate for that cause. If MLK said civil rights weren't important, why would anyone believe a protestor who said otherwise? |
|
|
No, it doesn't. In fact, for years the browser vendors told them to piss off and went with the whatwg :)
"As an extreme example (because it comes to mind), Martin Luther King had no real power; "
Martin Luther King had a church that followed him, and they were the people who started protesting with him. The W3C doesn't really have a church. Or at least, not one that is useful. If they protested it would be drowned out quite the same as 35 people marching somewhere in Alabama would be today. Additionally, MLK had people who believed in his cause. A very large number of people, who were enough to cause disruption. He just was able to motivate them.
That seems ... unlikely with the W3C.
So while you are right that if they had such power and influence, maybe they could attract people to the cause. But the likelihood of success is low, and they definitely aren't in the same situation as MLK.