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

Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:48:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4B75A29A.4090508@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Shelley Powers
>     <shelley.just@gmail.com <mailto: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
>     <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
> 
> The formal objection did take place in a public list[1]. 

My understanding is that there is a formal objection that I have yet to 
see.  Perhaps that's it, I honestly don't know.  In any case, I have 
asked that it be posted to this list.

>  Shelley
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html

A few observations.

If you look at the current, published HTML5 draft, you will see that it 
reflects blocking issues in quite a few places.  Here is an example:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#extensibility

Those that recall the process under which these drafts were created and 
approved, it involved a number of calls for publishing, and resolution 
of objections.  During that process Manu produced a draft that contained 
a description of the issues that were faced.  This resulted in a lengthy 
discussion concerning the selection and the wording of how the issues 
themselves were portrayed.

The outcome of that process was that issues were simply reflected in the 
document.  All that appears is an issue number, a hypertext link, and a 
short keyword description.  There is no ambiguity.  There is no room for 
posturing over the the wording of the issue.  Simple.  Clean.  And 
complete.  I was quite pleased with the outcome, and I believe that many 
others are too.

For those that wish to have their objections recorded thusly, we now 
have a decision process.  Step one is to open a bug report.  Depending 
on how things go, bug reports can get turned into issues, and issues are 
what is reflected in the document.

This is a process that we all agreed to.  It is a process that is being 
followed.

We even have a bugzilla component for recording problems with the 
process itself.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:49:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT