W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: Device upload for all platforms

From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:02:00 -0800
Message-ID: <38BAC628.32DE4994@eng.sun.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
"George Hobbs" wrote:
> > W3C standards should of course not be platform dependent.
> Yes.  The Netscape "EMBED" / MSIE "OBJECT" schism is exactly
> what the W3C claims to stand against.  Why isn't the Device
> Upload standard being recommended?  It would do away with the
> problem once and for all, and allow recording on non-wintel
> browsers.  This needs to be done sooner, not later.
> I encourage everyone to endorse James Salsman's petition[1]
> on this subject.
> - George

Without going into any details, the recent behaviour of Mr. Salsman
has made it completely impossible for anyone in the W3C to consider
working with him, listening seriously to him, or accepting as serious
anyone who endorses his proposal. Some of these activities border on 
the illegal (although I am not a lawyer, misrepresenting oneself or 
the endorsement of a major corporation is nothing to sneeze at), and 
I cannot fathom why he at this point could believe that anyone, 
especially members of the HTML WG (who are fully aware of what has
happened), would be able to ignore his indiscretions. He's even gone
to far as to forcibly approach one of our members at a conference.

I sent a message to Mr. Jacob Palme of Stockholm University, the 
originator of this thread, requesting clarification, ie., if he 
actually sent the originating message of this thread, and where 
he might have heard this rumour. As he has confirmed, he did send
the message, but was solicited to resend the message from Mr. Salsman; 
this message has now also been forwarded to this list now by Mr. 
Palme. We are now receiving messages from other people who have 
been similarly duped.

There mere mention of 'device upload' at this point makes the hair 
on the back of my neck stand up. I was not surprised that a follow-up
message with a subject line as this would endorse Mr. Salsman's 
proposal. He has tried every trick to create the appearance of 
endorsement of he and his proposal. The fact that "George Hobbs"
writes his email from a free email provider ("onebox.com") rather 
than a company address or even a paid ISP would tend to add suspicion,
especially since "George Hobbs" provided no signature file, no idea 
whatsoever of what organization he represents, nor can I find any 
previous record searching the W3C site and mailing list archives 
for anybody named "George Hobbs". Not one. Until it can be proven
otherwise, I would suspect that "George Hobbs" might actually be 
"James Salsman". If not, I apologize to Mr. Hobbs, but the evidence
weighs against this. 

As to the original subject of this message, there is NO existing 
proposal in the HTML WG that is vendor-specific as regards device 
upload, nor to my knowledge, *could* any such proprietary proposal
possibly survive within the WG (which is composed of representatives
of many companies) nor the wider review of all W3C member companies.
This is a red herring that Mr. Salsman is using to solicit support
for his proposal, which on its own doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as
has already been confirmed by our chair. The issue of device upload
in forms is being handled by the forms sub-group of the HTML WG, and
will proceed without Mr. Salsman's input, since he obviously cannot
be reasonable about this. 


Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel 
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
Received on Monday, 28 February 2000 14:02:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC