Créer un compteSe connecter

Recherches récentes

Aucune recherche récente

Options de recherche

Disponible uniquement lorsque vous êtes connecté.
mastouille.fr est l'un des nombreux serveurs Mastodon indépendants que vous pouvez utiliser pour participer au fédiverse.
Mastouille est une instance Mastodon durable, ouverte, et hébergée en France.

Administré par :

Statistiques du serveur :

695
comptes actifs

mastouille.fr: À proposAnnuaire des profilsPolitique de confidentialité

Mastodon: À proposTélécharger l’applicationRaccourcis clavierVoir le code sourcev4.3.4

#w3c

0 message0 participant0 message aujourd’hui
Public
Ecologia Digital

"We launched in Sep/2024 with a bold mission: to foster an #open, #decentralized, and #usercentric #socialweb. In just the few short months that remained in 2024, we made meaningful progress. Our participation at #W3C #TPAC and collaborations with major stakeholders like #Mastodon, #Ghost, and #Automattic have helped spark momentum for a healthier, more resilient online ecosystem.
Today we are proud to publish our 2024 #AnnualReport– the first of many."
#SWF
socialwebfoundation.org/2025/0

Social Web Foundation · Reflecting on Our First Year: The Social Web Foundation’s 2024 Annual ReportWe launched in September 2024 with a bold mission: to foster an open, decentralized, and user-centric social web. In just the few short months that remained in 2024, we made meaningful progress. Ou…
Public
ulrike

Internet Standards Almanac: Who’s really shaping the internet? Our new tool helps answers three key questions:

- Who leads? Which actors dominate formal leadership positions, including chairing various working groups and committees.

- Who speaks? Which actors dominate discussions and mailing lists.

- Who publishes? Which actors author the largest number of technical standards.

article19.org/resources/intern

A cute cat in front of a graph
#InternetStandards#SDO#IETF
Public
Annbass

I am tickled to see this bit of web trivia listed in @TheSeattleTimes “Today in History”. I represented Boeing to the #WorldWideWebConsortium (#W3C) for years. That international Web standards org was made possible because @timbl and @CERN generously gave the initial web code to the world for free — apparently on April 30, 1993. Many of my friends here are from that connection. I am deeply grateful for that experience. And of course that we have the Web!

Newspaper clipping saying that Tim Berners-Lee and CERN gave the original Web code to the public for free on April 30, 1993.
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
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

Serveur Mastodon hébergé sur 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 @misinfocon.com #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
Public
GENKI

#iStatMenu で有名な #bjango の #Pinwheel というアプリ良さそう。

bjango.com/mac/pinwheel/

カラートークンみたいなものを生成・管理することができるんだけど、色の濃淡をイージングパスみたいなグラフィカルな UI で作成できて、コントラストのアクセシビリティチェックもできる（これができる単体アプリ探してた）

あと、 #W3C のコミュニティーグループがドラフトを検討してるデザイントークンのオープンなフォーマット #DesignTokensJSON のインポート・エクスポートにも対応してる。

さっそく試用中 :tony_normal:

tr.designtokens.org/format/

BjangoPinwheelDesign systems and accessibility testing.
A répondu dans un fil de discussion
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.

Public *
Coralie Mercier

#blog “Architecting”

> I choose to set the tone and direction, impress key principles, assign certain people, make specific connections, monitor promising angles, and track that the course is as plotted.

> Tomorrow is exactly the 10th anniversary of my appointment as head of the #W3C marketing and communications team. What changed though is that in some cases I discover I have a really hard time executing, to the extent that I am unable to remember how to.

blog.koalie.net/2025/01/31/arc

Illustration of a cat looking surprised or frightened
ExplorerFlux en direct
À propos