W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:30:34 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271002120730u28542c85p4b86b5407948941b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> At least two members of this team, Ian Hickson[1] and Anne van
>> Kesteren[2], representing Google and Opera, respectively, have been writing
>> this morning that Adobe is officially blocking publication of HTML5. This
>> type of communication could cause FUD among the community of users, and
>> should be addressed as soon as possible.
>>
>> There was something in the minutes yesterday about a formal objection from
>> Larry Masinter [3], but the emails in this regard went to a protected email
>> list. However, Larry has discussed in the www-archive list[4], a publicly
>> accessible list, his objections to the publication of Microdata, the RDFa
>> document, and the Canvas 2D API, but not the HTML5 document, itself. And the
>> concerns I've read in this list have to do with charter and scope -- a
>> reasonable concern, I feel. Others of us have also expressed a similar
>> concern.
>> An unfortunate consequence of lumping multiple documents into one CfC is
>> that there is some confusion about when an action or objection is made
>> against one, it seems to be against all. Yet, and co-chairs, correct me if
>> I'm wrong, but we can object to any one of the documents, and it won't hold
>> up up the publications of the others. The lump CfC was a procedural short
>> cut, not an actual formal grouping.
>> As far as we know of, there is no Formal Objection blocking the
>> publication of HTML5...correct?
>>
>
> I can only say that my understanding is incomplete.  I was not copied on
> the Formal Objection, and while Paul requested that Larry post the substance
> of his objection on public-html yesterday, and Larry indicated that he would
> do so, to the best of my knowledge this has not been done.
>
> The best I can piece together the substance can be found here (member
> only):
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2010Feb/0100.html
>
> Ultimately, it appears that the original request can be found here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1436.html
>
> And there was a related, but brief discussion which can be found here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0006.html
>
> I have yet to find any bug reports related to this matter.  If anybody
> finds one, I would appreciate a link.  Additionally, if anybody can find a
> way to achieve amicable resolution of this matter with Larry and Adobe, I
> encourage them to do so.
>
>  Shelley
>>
>> [1] http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1 <
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1>
>>
>> [2] http://twitter.com/annevk/status/9002695479
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-html-wg-minutes.html#item07
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>

I eagerly await confirming information, too.

In the meantime, it is irresponsible for members of this team to make a
statement of fact, when all they have to go by is second hand discussions
and conjecture. Before the day is over, I fully expect this one to be picked
up by a lazy media representative from one of the tech publications, looking
for titillating gossip.

Hopefully, others more responsible will refrain until the facts are in.

Shelley
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 15:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC