Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on dice.camp.
dice.camp is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon server for RPG folks to hang out and talk. Not owned by a billionaire.

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.7K
active users

dice.camp: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#W3C

1 post1 participant1 post today
Public
Tantek Çelik

I’m happy to announce that something I and others have worked on very hard for the past few years has been published by the W3C Advisory Board (AB) and sent to the W3C Advisory Committee (AC) for a vote to make it official:

Vision for W3C: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/NOTE-w3c-vision-20250402/

Official announcement: https://www.w3.org/news/2025/proposal-to-endorse-vision-for-w3c-as-a-w3c-statement/

If your company is a W3C Member¹, please ask your Advisory Committee Representative² to vote to support publication of the Vision for W3C as an official W3C Statement:

https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/Vision2025/ (W3C Member-only link)

Thank you for your support.

#W3CVision #Vision #VisionForW3C #W3C (@w3c@w3c.social) #W3CAB (@ab@w3c.social)

¹ https://www.w3.org/membership/list/
² https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList (W3C Member-only link)

www.w3.orgVision for W3C
Continued thread
Public
Xamanismo Coletivo

#DigitalSovereignity needs #StructuralPower

"Who enforces digital standards such as those that come from the #IETF or the #W3C?
In a few cases, it is state power (e.g. accessibility in some jurisdictions) but that's rare. In some other cases, it's market discipline… But most of the important areas of the #digitalsphere have stopped being open, competitive markets over a decade ago so that the market no longer has a credible disciplining function to enforce #standards. What matters is who has the #structuralpower to deploy the standards they want to see and avoid those they dislike."
@robin

berjon.com/digital-sovereignty

Robin BerjonDigital SovereigntyDigital sovereignty has a bad reputation. In internet governance circles, sovereignty is considered awkward enough to be referred to by as the "s-word." It is often associated with misguided attempts at returning to the era of national champions, like building a French search engine or a European Google, or worse with the eternal boogeyman that is the "splinternet." It doesn't have to be this way!
Public
Tantek Çelik

Something I wrote in the W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop’s Zoom chat:


Another implicit assumption (flaw) that is often a part of "purely technical solutions" is the neglect or ignorance (innocent naïveté) of existing technical solutions.

A technical proposal should not be praised for what it claims to solve.

A technical proposal must be evaluated by what marginal difference or advantage does it provide over existing technologies.

Any technical proposal that ignores prior technologies is itself doomed to be ignored by the next technical proposal.


In addition to the slide presentations (links to come) in the mini workshop and Zoom verbal discussion which was minuted (link to come), there was a lot of very interesting discussion in the Zoom chat, which was not minuted. Sometimes such quick back & forth can help inspire summarizing of points which one had not previously written down.

I was encouraged by a fellow workshop participant to blog this one so here it is!

#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #technology #technical #proposal #technicalProposal #history

Mastodon hosted on indieweb.socialIndieweb.SocialINDIEWEB.SOCIAL is an instance focused on the evolution of #Openweb, #Indieweb, #Fediverse, #Mastodon, #Humanetech and #Calm technologies.
Public
Tantek Çelik

I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:

1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"

2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"

After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:

3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.

I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.

We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.

We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.

#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies


Glossary

Ad Hominem
  attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Politician's syllogism
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
  Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
  Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
  Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
  * https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
  Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:  
  * https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/


References

¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/


Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation

tantek.comI just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop^1 hosted by the Credible Web Community Group^2 (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions: 1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!" 2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y" After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid: 3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading. I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions. We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others. We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions. #W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies Glossary Ad Hominem attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Politician's syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering) Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem": * https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem Forbes has an illustrative anecdote: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/ References ^1 https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/ ^2 https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/ Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon: * https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency * https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation - Tantek
#misinfocon
Public
Mia (web luddite)

Since 2009, I've been contributing to open web tools & standards, with a focus on CSS and related platform features at the W3C. But that work takes resources, making it hard for independent contributors like us @OddBird to stay involved.

We need support. If you appreciate what we're doing, you (or your company) can sponsor our work directly:

opencollective.com/oddbird-ope

Let's keep building an open web for everyone.

opencollective.comOddBird Open Source - Open CollectiveWe love contributing to the languages & tools developers rely on. Our focus is Popover & Anchor Positioning polyfills, and CSS specifications for functions, mixins, and responsive typography. Help us keep that work sustainable and focused on your needs!
#w3c#css
Replied in thread
Public
small circle 🕊 in calmness

@frankstrater @dansup @peertube

Other than that.. I started calling current AS/AP fedi the "as soon as possible" fediverse, where necessarily early app implementations served as the de-facto reference implementations for the #W3C #ActivityStreams and #ActivityPub open standards.

At serious cost: Ever increasing #ProtocolDecay and subsequent #WhackaMoleAdoption i.e. retaining app-by-app interop pipes against moving release targets.

When is Video domain getting standardized? That's my question.

Replied in thread
Public
sb arms & legs

@andreas_heitmann
This is just a classic misdirect/misappropriation. I fully agree that scale of money - and more - should be put into the open web, but what this initiative is is the opposite - it's a syphon designed to take money *away* from legit open development, and keep it within the classed ranks, under the control and supervision of meta and venture capital.

If people want to support an open web, they should consider established bodies such as the #w3c (who maintains #activityPub).

ExploreLive feeds
About