W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Re: I am Spartacus! [was Re: revert requests]

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:29:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4DFD7B1B.3080509@burningbird.net>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 6/18/2011 5:07 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Shelley - I wasn't suggesting speaking for you per se, just acting as
> a transparent conduit (while still being happily responsible for any
> repercussions).

Sure, understood.

>> I will NOT skulk in the background like a naughty girl not allowed in the
>> clubhouse.
> What I've found most annoying since getting closer to this group isn't
> the clubhouseness (I find myself agreeing with the WHATWG boys a lot
> more than I'd ever have expected) but the antics of one particular
> naughty boy in the showers.

I'm more concerned about the fact that for all the talk of procedures, 
there is no real control over HTML5. It's an ugly mess that threatens to 
get worse, not better.

What happens in six months when the WebGL group suddenly decides they 
need something else in HTML5? Or some other group comes along and 
breathlessly states how they must have this, or that, or whatever?

For all the talk of "Living HTML", all the stuff still finds its way 
back to the W3C and HTML5--but via the backdoor. It is the worst of all 
possible worlds.

Consider the recent change related to crossorigin and CORS. This was a 
change specifically related to security, and the relaxing of security.  
More caution, rather than less, should be spent with anything security 
related, yet this was added with _no interaction on the part of the HTML 
WG, at all_. It was extending a concept that evolved for one purpose for 
another, without necessarily even being aware of why such an extension 
was necessary in the first place.

In the meantime, the accessibility group has spent three years fighting 
to save one attribute. One single attribute that existed in HTML4, has 
no ramifications from a security standpoint, and few potential negative 

Broken. How can a person look at this and _not_ see how broken all of 
this is?

> I guess you should sign up again, Shelley.
Not an option.

But thank you again for your offer. And best of luck with your continued 
participation with the HTML WG.


Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 04:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:46 UTC