W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:44:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4E738B02.7030201@jumis.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> >  Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text editing as
>> >  a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
>> >  specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers to author
>> >  editing environments.
> It is not accurate to refer to the specification as Google or WHATWG.
> It's in the public domain, so Google has no more right to it than
> anyone else.  Google paid for its development up to this point, but no
> one from Google but me has exercised any discretion as to its
> contents, and I'll continue working on it under different employment
> if necessary.  The spec has nothing to do with the WHATWG, except that
> I used their mailing list for a while.

Google's support of editors is a net benefit for all of us. I greatly 
appreciate the CC0 license that you and other editors have put onto your 
specs.

That said, Google's support of various editors that have disdain for W3C 
process, has real-world consequences.
You're not alone, amongst your co-workers when you state:
"I don't believe that the W3C Process is useful, and in fact I think 
it's actively harmful"

I don't think it's malicious. But, Google has unprecedented control over 
these W3C specs.
They are absolutely using that control to benefit their priorities. 
That's their right, as you say:
"my time is my own or my employer's, and no one else has any right to 
place demands on how I spend it".

This puts non-vendors in a bad situation. Where Google has purchased the 
space to play both sides of the game, the rest of us are struggling to 
have our use cases accepted as legitimate. By funding so many editors, 
for so many years, they gained control of the specs. That's fine... But 
the specs are now driven by individuals who have no deference to the 
W3C, and thus, no deference to the use cases that various member 
organizations and developers are -actively- engaged in.

Yes, you have a public domain document, and yes, you're likely in the 
same boat as Tab Atkins:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1265.html
"The editor is the *lowest* level in the hierarchy of constituencies"

The "vendor" implementation is the highest level... Your company has the 
full vertical.

They use that position to knock-down use cases. When a use case serves 
Google Docs, or Gmail, it's heard. When it does not, it's shuttered.

That's a problem. And it comes up again and again. With all of the best 
intentions, you are a part of that group.

It's not a malicious interaction, it's not something I'm overly 
concerned about. But it is real.

Lucky for all of us, WebKit is open source, it's very open to community 
contributions, and the upstream is shared by several major vendors.

-Charles
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 17:44:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT