Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> At least two members of this team, Ian Hickson[1] and Anne van
>> Kesteren[2], representing Google and Opera, respectively, have been writing
>> this morning that Adobe is officially blocking publication of HTML5. This
>> type of communication could cause FUD among the community of users, and
>> should be addressed as soon as possible.
>>
>> There was something in the minutes yesterday about a formal objection from
>> Larry Masinter [3], but the emails in this regard went to a protected email
>> list. However, Larry has discussed in the www-archive list[4], a publicly
>> accessible list, his objections to the publication of Microdata, the RDFa
>> document, and the Canvas 2D API, but not the HTML5 document, itself. And the
>> concerns I've read in this list have to do with charter and scope -- a
>> reasonable concern, I feel. Others of us have also expressed a similar
>> concern.
>> An unfortunate consequence of lumping multiple documents into one CfC is
>> that there is some confusion about when an action or objection is made
>> against one, it seems to be against all. Yet, and co-chairs, correct me if
>> I'm wrong, but we can object to any one of the documents, and it won't hold
>> up up the publications of the others. The lump CfC was a procedural short
>> cut, not an actual formal grouping.
>> As far as we know of, there is no Formal Objection blocking the
>> publication of HTML5...correct?
>>
>
> I can only say that my understanding is incomplete.  I was not copied on
> the Formal Objection, and while Paul requested that Larry post the substance
> of his objection on public-html yesterday, and Larry indicated that he would
> do so, to the best of my knowledge this has not been done.
>
> The best I can piece together the substance can be found here (member
> only):
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2010Feb/0100.html
>
> Ultimately, it appears that the original request can be found here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1436.html
>
> And there was a related, but brief discussion which can be found here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0006.html
>
> I have yet to find any bug reports related to this matter.  If anybody
> finds one, I would appreciate a link.  Additionally, if anybody can find a
> way to achieve amicable resolution of this matter with Larry and Adobe, I
> encourage them to do so.
>
>  Shelley
>>
>> [1] http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1 <
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1>
>>
>> [2] http://twitter.com/annevk/status/9002695479
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-html-wg-minutes.html#item07
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>

I eagerly await confirming information, too.

In the meantime, it is irresponsible for members of this team to make a
statement of fact, when all they have to go by is second hand discussions
and conjecture. Before the day is over, I fully expect this one to be picked
up by a lazy media representative from one of the tech publications, looking
for titillating gossip.

Hopefully, others more responsible will refrain until the facts are in.

Shelley