From: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven(_dot_)Pemberton(_at_)cwi(_dot_)nl>
You state that there are comments regarding how the device upload
proposal can be improved. Please publish them, with my replies to
them. My understanding is that there are no unresolved issues.
They are already published, and there is no need to repeat them here.
Where are they published? They are in the private W3C members-only
archives, in the w3c-html-wg archives around October-November 1999,
with nearly the same discussion in the private w3c-forms list earlier.
This non-wintel issue is a red herring, and has nothing to do with it.
The fact remains that non-wintel web users are excluded from a range
of very useful services involving device input and upload. If the
HTML Working Group had incorporated device upload into specifications
when they were first submitted as an internet-draft in 1997, after
the implementation on the WebTV Plus, then all this would be a
non-issue. But as things stand, the W3C is contributing to wintel
dominance, and disenfranchising Unix and Mac users.
Delaying device upload standardization to coincide with the XForms
overhaul of HTML forms might be attractive to the HTML Working Group
because it increases the chance that XForms will be accepted. But
is that an ethical justification for delaying a technology that
enables a wide range of educational services?
Tying device upload to XForms will certainly delay both, and could
make it less likely that the device upload work will be implemented.
If the XForms work is so important, then shouldn't it be able to
stand on its own?