W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:42:46 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910211642p5b278b52vc13407f737450cc9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> If Henri volunteered to help with RDFa, I'm fall on his neck with
>> thankfulness, and sacrifice a chicken at midnight, in thanks. I think
>> that Manu would agree with me.
> So you wouldn't be at all concerned that he might, for example, remove
> xmlns: and CURIEs, if he was the sole active editor? You wouldn't even ask,
> "why the change of heart?" I guess I am just not as trusting as you.

I would assume that Henri would act in good faith. That either he
wouldn't work on the spec if he, in good consciousness, couldn't, or
if he did, he would work with the spec, making it better.

And he wouldn't be the sole editor. I don't trust the concept of a
"sole" editor, no matter what. I think having a sole editor causes
more harm, then good. I think it creates a level of frustration, of
distrust. I don't believe any W3C document should have one single
author. I don't think any specification in the world, should have one
single author.

The HTML+RDFa document doesn't. My goodness, look at the number of
editors for the HTML+RDFa document? I look at that, and I feel really
good. I know these folks don't always agree. I also know they are
motivated to do their best. I feel good about this document primarily
because I see that group of editors.

Even with the new Canvas document -- we have the past participation
from Ian, and hopefully participation in the future. And we have both
Doug and Eliot. I wish I could also help, but I said at the time, I
can't because I don't have the time. But if I had expressed interest,
I feel comfortable I could have also been an editor. And I expect
other editors to get involved, once people get used to the idea of it
being a sep spec.

So, no, I don't care who, I don't care what: I don't trust single
author specifications. That way leads to ultimate failure.

But I do trust that if Henri volunteered to be _a_ editor with RDFa,
he would do so for ethical reasons -- not to sabotage, but to help.

> That being said, I'd rather just hear Microsoft's explanation of their
> motives than continue speculating.

That's fine, but I'd rather Eliot not feel like he's putting his head
into the lion's mouth, either.

> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 23:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC