W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:57:13 +0100
Message-Id: <A5599FAD-F978-4D30-854C-C161B7FCE652@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, tina@greytower.net, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On 1 May 2007, at 01:23, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> Now, for reasons that I do not pretend to understand, the W3C seem  
>> to be bowing to
>> pressure from the very same group (not of individuals, but of
>> ?vested? interests) that created the mess in the first place,
>> by which I mean the browser implementors.  Remember that it
>> was they (Microsoft, Netscape et al) that led to the bloated language
>> that was HTML 3.2; now, with HTML 4.01 Strict already pointing
>> the way to a leaner, cleaner, language, once again the browser
>> implementors are seeking to re-introduce language bloat.  But
>> this time they are doing so in a way that is far harder for the
>> W3C to resist : rather than each going his/her own way, they are
>> actively working /with/ each other to either retain a feature
>> that has already been formally deprecated, or to define a new set
>> of  "added value" elements; and whenever one of these is called
>> into question, they defend its retention/introduction by screaming
>> "interoperability" or "compatibility with the web".
> The whole paragraph above is exactly the sort of thing that makes  
> me think you have a bad attitude about browser vendors. Does the  
> language above sound like a good way to start a constructive  
> conversation? Do you think you will persuade anyone to your point  
> of view through intemperate, judgmental language like "vested  
> interests", "created the mess", "bloated language", "screaming  
> 'interoperability'", etc? Is it helpful to make it sound like  
> browser vendors working together is some sort of sinister conspiracy?
> Please reconsider your tone and try to engage in this process  
> politely and with reasoned arguments. Assuming bad faith on the  
> part of all browser vendors collectively (who, after all, showed up  
> here to engage in the standards process) is unlikely to be very  
> persuasive.
I personally could say the same about a large number of your posts,  
who make newcomers, who have no ties to the spec, or particular  
browsers, feel excluded and worthless in this process.

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 07:57:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC