Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:07 , Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> Regarding the point about charters. Mozilla has objected to charters
> in the past. E.g. around WebVTT and around HTML licensing. It didn't
> cause anything to change. We tried it a few times, then we stopped
> trying. Seems perfectly normal to me.

Anne, I must be misunderstanding something, as this appears to be saying that any process in which you don’t always get your way is a waste of time. I know you’re not that immature, so perhaps you could re-phrase?

Even if it’s true that single objections rarely carry the day, if everyone behaved this way, we could have the absurd situation in which most people objected to something but no-one bothered to say so. These checks presume that if we care, we say so, and then everyone knows where we stand.  Even if we proceed, it’s useful to know the level, nature, and origin of concerns, and have them on record.

You do realize that you (pl.) are spending a heck of a lot more time on this after the fact than a simple objection to the charter would have taken, and your position now would also be a whole load more credible had you objected?

Finally, am I missing something, or is there a charter comment from Mozilla on <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/timed-text-2014/results>? In fact, I don’t see any mention of VTT here from anyone, or indeed any opposition.  Do I have the wrong charter? And on HTML licensing, my recollection is that actually Mozilla got what they originally asked for, and then later changed their minds, but this history is a lot more tangled and honestly I don’t want to spend a lot of time spelunking for evidence.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 16:20:29 UTC