- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:36:47 -0600
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 I cannot comment on the contents of the mails in the private lists, but that mail from Larry Masinter is not the entire story. There are further relevant details that are hidden in a member-only list, which is what I explicitly disapprove of in my last email. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 18:37:40 UTC