W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > January 2013

Take discussion of sig contents off this list [was: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)]

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:00:07 +0900
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, public-html-admin@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130131090005.GD73218@sideshowbarker>
As the team contact for the group, I ask that this list not be used for any
further discussion about the specific topic of roc's sigs or the general
topic of what's appropriate for people to put in their sigs.

If you want to have further discussion of this on a W3C list, I suggest
using www-archive.

  --Mike

Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, 2013-01-31 00:39 -0700:

> Well, I am offended by Robert's trailers. They have no business on a W3C
> technical ML. I would say the same to anyone who appended such trailers no
> matter their religious persuasion.
> 
> I've raised this complaint to Robert in the past privately, and he said he
> would desist, but now I see them appearing again.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > Hi Chairs,
> >
> > I am not religious and so I find Robert's religious strap lines a
> > little funky, but am in no way offended by them, but I do find glens
> > response offensive and unnecessary in tone and substance and the sort
> > of interaction that should not be tolerated on this mailing list.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > SteveF
> >
> > Glen adams wrote:
> >
> > >>     Rob
> > >>     --
> > >>     Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of
> > the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority
> > over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among
> > you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave
> > — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
> > give his life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you keep this religious rubbish off of this technical mail list
> > please. Go to church if you want to talk to your god.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 January 2013 03:27, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So, you want to insist on a higher bar for CDMs than other
> > modularizable
> > >>> components? For example, there are no similar requirements for things
> > like:
> > >>>
> > >>> uri scheme/url protocol handlers
> > >>> image decoders
> > >>> video decoders
> > >>> audio decoders
> > >>> font decoders
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I do expect URIs, image, media and font formats used on the Web to be
> > >> fully specified somewhere, and that is standard practice today.
> > >
> > >
> > > And CDMs will be fully specified somewhere as well.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> input method editors
> > >>> geolocation devices
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> These do not affect interop.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes they do.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> While it is reasonable to define a voluntary registry, it is not
> > >>> reasonable to require registration or to require that documentation be
> > fully
> > >>> open. Who would enforce this even if it were defined?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Whoever maintains the registry.
> > >
> > >
> > > No registry I'm aware of does such a thing. You are naive to believe it
> > > feasible.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> It is reasonable for particular UA vendors to impose their own business
> > >>> requirements on integrable components. It is not reasonable to dictate
> > that
> > >>> all UAs follow the same policy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It is reasonable for the W3C to impose requirements on its own
> > >> specifications in order to maximise interoperability. Vendors who don't
> > like
> > >> are not required to participate.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are wrong. It is not the role of the W3C to dictate the uses of its
> > > specifications.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Rob

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:00:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:00:24 GMT