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

Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:39:46 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271002121139r71770d52l90238721c8976fe7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> The formal objection did take place in a public list[1].
>  Shelley
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html
> That post, despite including the words "formal" and "objection" is not a
> proper Formal Objection:
> - It is not an objection to a group decision - no decision had been made at
> the time, and no decision has been made to date, on publishing the documents
> in question. Or even on the status wording for that matter. All we have had
> is discussion.
> - It does not cite technical arguments (or in fact any arguments).
> - It was not registered with the Chairs - we were Cc'd as a courtesy but
> the objection was addressed to the Team Contacts.
> W3C Process on Formal Objections:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals
> Message that makes clear the objection was not addressed to the Chairs:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0006.html
> Subsequently, one of our Team Contacts replied to Larry's inquiry, after
> the Chairs and Team Contacts discussed the matter:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0016.html
> Since then there have been no further public posts on that thread. As you
> can see from Larry's post just now on this thread, there has been additional
> private communication on the matter, however.
> Regards,
> Maciej
And according to what I read of Larry's communication, there is nothing in
his objection that is directly related to the publication of HTML5.

My point on this thread was to counter FUD related to the statements being
made about "Adobe blocking HTML5". To quote:

"Net result: the latest publication of HTML5 is now blocked by Adobe, via an
objection that has still not been made public (despite yesterday's promise
to make it so)." [1]

Statements such as this tend to get picked up and broadcast broadly.
Actually, past tense -- was broadcast broadly. Rather than indulge in
conjecture, I went directly to the source, this group, for clarification.
Philippe[2] provided a specific answer in this regard, and I appreciate his
direct response. That's really all I needed.

Frankly, according to Sam's recent email in this thread about the issue
tracker and the procedure[3], once the issues I'm writing Change Proposals
for are properly upgraded to Open issues, I'm blocking HTML5 more than
Adobe, or any other company: I have more issues in the issue tracker, all of
which, if I understand the process, are blocking until resolved.

After all the conspiracy talk about W3C back rooms, and nefarious designs on
HTML5, I feel über dangerous ;-)

Shelley "Mata Hari" Powers

[1] http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0354.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0359.html

(Sorry for duplicate message to you, Maciej)
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 19:40:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:10 UTC