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

Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:20:06 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1002121020i5f4b77e1tdc2400c1d526e78b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> 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?
> Shelley
> [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

I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair.
This was an abuse of the member-only lists.  Any Objection, potential
or not, should *always* take place on the public list.  I am
disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions.

I am glad that the Chairs are pretending that it doesn't exist until
it becomes public.  It should never have *not* been public, however.
This is not conducive to open standards development.  Such actions
should be condemned by all responsible parties in this working group.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:20:59 UTC

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