Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> ~TJ
>

The formal objection did take place in a public list[1].

 Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html