|
|
|
|
|
|
by dmorgan
5004 days ago
|
|
|
>I don't want to be an asshole who just criticizes, but really? It's the best W3C, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Facebook, HP, Adobe, Nokia and Opera could come up with? No, it's the best a small team, sponsored by those companies, but having nothing to do with them --it's not like Google or Adobe or MS assigned their best engineers to the new site-- could come up with as an ALPHA release, and in a short period of time. Isn't it OBVIOUS? |
|
|
No, it's not. I didn't (and still don't) see a mention of it being alpha or even beta on the site's homepage or the linked article. There's a notice on wiki pages that I missed.
And my impression (from the article) was that the initial content is provided by the aforementioned companies' employees, and the site is curated by W3C. So it's not like a bunch of nerds have created a site and these tech giants are endorsing it by putting their logos in the main page. They are the guys who are running it, and it's not a charity, too. It benefits all these companies (whom, in total, worth maybe about 3 trillion dollars) financially.
I'm not sour at them or anything - I'll probably use their site and share it with others. I'm just disappointed that it's just not up to the standards of what I was hoping these multi-trillion campaniles are able to do. If they were just a bunch of guys, I'd commend them. Now that it's a coalition of biggest tech giants, I can't be as forgiving.