- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:20:50 -0700
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, 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 Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > 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. Incorrect. Browsers are below authors, who are below users. The full hierarchy of constituencies that I and several others subscribe to is: 1. Users 2. Authors 3. Implementors 4. Spec Authors / Theoretical Purity (these two levels are close enough that they're not really useful to distinguish, I think) > 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 quite a forceful statement. It's also completely untrue. For example, I have never talked to the Gmail team about my work. I've talked to Docs, but only about CSSOM measurement APIs because it's hard to gather concrete use-cases for some of these things even though they're obviously useful. I would appreciate not being publicly slandered in the future. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 18:21:37 UTC