Janet,
Thank you for your reply correcting my error:
>>... The W3C... constrains meaningful debate to those
>> willing and able to pay US$50,000 per year.
>
> That is not true, on a variety of counts. I'll name two.
> First, membership has two levels: full and affiliate. For
> more details, please refer to:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Prospectus/Joining
You are right. I made a serious mistake that I wish you
had replied directly and to the IETF in correcting.
Affiliate-level membership costs only US$5,000 for
nonprofit, government, and small businesses. That means
that the W3C has a membership fee income is well below the
$20 million I mistakenly figured. I wish I had known about
affiliate membership two years ago. Now, I would look
forward to joining as an Affiliate, but after interacting
with the HTML working group membership and leadership, it
is clear that I am better off unaffiliated.
>... People have provided you with a thoughtful technical
> evaluation of your proposal....
That is true, but you refer to the comment addendum of 3rd
March 2000 which only addresses the DEVICE attribute and
neglects at least four related topics: the two proposed
multipart/form-data headers, the MAXTIME attribute, and the
security considerations of the device upload draft. As you
are the official spokesperson of the W3C, I ask that those
issues be addressed. I have agreed not to bother
Dr. Pemberton with these matters any further. The HTML
staff contact would seem to be the appropriate person to
address the issues but has never done so after several
direct requests over the past couple years. So, who is the
correct person to address these issues?
Also, please ask the advisory committee representatives
from Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic and TIAA-CREF to
contact me.
Cheers,
James Salsman
