- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:59:58 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Maciej wrote [concerning Microsoft's attitude about canvas]: >This is why I said "past attitude". I'd like to know what the current >attitude is. >I don't want to go digging through the archives and the Web for >smoking guns, I'd just like to understand Microsoft's current intent. Yes, I agree. Well, without digging though the archive (I of course was an early advocate of archive mining, see for example [1].[2], more available upon request), I just sort of assumed that Microsoft's continued involvement in the development of a spec which included references to both SVG and <canvas> signaled their long term interest in supporting that spec (providing, of course, resolution of any outstanding patent and trademark issues). Microsoft recently joined Opera, Mozilla, and Google in sponsoring SVG Open (SVG is now mentioned in the HTML spec, though I don't know how to spell my gestural reaction to such news), suggesting (in some general sense of the term) their interest in open standards. In the grand scheme of things, I think the idealized objective observer of the archives might find less hypothetical reason to fuss about Microsoft's behavior than it would about certain other companies. Just speculating of course. But let's not point fingers. The general issue is relevant: does Microsoft's continued participation in this WG signal just as much willingness to abide by consensus as other companies? Having been a bit out of the loop in the past two years I assume that consensus is still valued by the W3C? cheers David [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1389.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Apr/0075.html
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 02:00:39 UTC