W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Dissatisfaction with HTML WG

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:55:58 +1300
To: Gavin Sharp <gavin@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Message-id: <4786F6DE.30107@55.co.nz>

Gavin Sharp wrote:
> ----- "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:
>> But when you take a step back, remove your rose tinted 
>> glasses and see that you are employed by one of the main backers of
>> the WHATWG and the WHATWG is in fact running the W3C's HTML WG
>> I thought that having the WHATWG and the W3C HTML WG work together in
>> the (X)HTML5 process meant that both groups would balance each other
>> out with their different ranges of experience. But instead we have the 
>> WHATWG running both groups which means that the W3C HTML WG process
>> has been corrupted and become pointless.
> The way these paragraphs are phrased, it seems like you think the WHATWG and the W3C HTML WG are disjoint sets of people, when that is demonstrably not the case. It may be true that many of the members in the intersection of W3C HTML WG and WHATWG are in influential positions, but as far as I can tell they're there because of their skills, and because they've volunteered their efforts to improving the spec. 

> The implication that people who disagree with you are "the WHATWG" and that the people who agree with you are "the W3C HTML WG"

I never implied that any one group agreed with me Gavin. Can I suggest 
that you read all of the thread before commenting.

>  and that the two groups are at odds bothers me. I don't think it's productive to maintain these kinds of "us vs. them" attitudes,

I never implied anything like "us vs. them", actually it's more like 
"them vs an open and fair process".

>  and I wish you would direct any objections you may have to the specific people involved rather than making blanket statements about the membership of any one group.

I have already directed my concerns directly to the people involved. You 
would know this if you had read all of the thread.

Dean Edridge
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 04:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:17 UTC