Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto:
>> jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Shelley Powers
>>    <shelley.just@gmail.com <mailto: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
>>    <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].
>>
>
> My understanding is that there is a formal objection that I have yet to
> see.  Perhaps that's it, I honestly don't know.  In any case, I have asked
> that it be posted to this list.
>
>
>   Shelley
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html
>>
>
> A few observations.
>
> If you look at the current, published HTML5 draft, you will see that it
> reflects blocking issues in quite a few places.  Here is an example:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#extensibility
>
> Those that recall the process under which these drafts were created and
> approved, it involved a number of calls for publishing, and resolution of
> objections.  During that process Manu produced a draft that contained a
> description of the issues that were faced.  This resulted in a lengthy
> discussion concerning the selection and the wording of how the issues
> themselves were portrayed.
>
> The outcome of that process was that issues were simply reflected in the
> document.  All that appears is an issue number, a hypertext link, and a
> short keyword description.  There is no ambiguity.  There is no room for
> posturing over the the wording of the issue.  Simple.  Clean.  And complete.
>  I was quite pleased with the outcome, and I believe that many others are
> too.
>
> For those that wish to have their objections recorded thusly, we now have a
> decision process.  Step one is to open a bug report.  Depending on how
> things go, bug reports can get turned into issues, and issues are what is
> reflected in the document.
>


Actually, not all issues are recorded in the HTML 5 document. It would seem
that several issues I'm writing change proposals were never upgraded from
Raised issues to Open Issues, which they should have been when I volunteered
to write change proposals.

Can I get these items upgraded, so they do appear in the HTML5 document?




>
> This is a process that we all agreed to.  It is a process that is being
> followed.
>
> We even have a bugzilla component for recording problems with the process
> itself.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>

Shelley