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

Whoa! [Was: Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:42:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4E7398AA.3060601@nokia.com>
To: "ext Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: 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>
Hi All,

This thread has taken a few twists and turns and is now relatively far 
from Aryeh's original question of "Does anyone object to public-webapps 
being used to discuss the HTML Editing spec?". I will start a separate 
RfC or CfC on that specific question.

In the meantime, if you want to continue discussions that go beyond the 
narrow scope of the original question, I ask that you *please* continue 
on some other Public list (perhaps www-talk or www-archive) and not use 
public-webapps. Some very good points about general process issues have 
been raised in this thread. I am not trying to stop discussions on the 
broader process issues. On the contrary, I encourage everyone to 
continue those discussions elsewhere (perhaps use www-archive as the 

(I have previously proposed the W3C create a Public mail list for 
general process-related discussions but received negative feedback. I 
will try again and will report back if I get some "joy").


On 9/16/11 2:20 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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 18:44:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:34 UTC