W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:20:06 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1002121020i5f4b77e1tdc2400c1d526e78b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> 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?
> Shelley
> [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

I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair.
This was an abuse of the member-only lists.  Any Objection, potential
or not, should *always* take place on the public list.  I am
disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions.

I am glad that the Chairs are pretending that it doesn't exist until
it becomes public.  It should never have *not* been public, however.
This is not conducive to open standards development.  Such actions
should be condemned by all responsible parties in this working group.

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC