- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:42:50 -0400
- To: "ext Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Hi All, This thread has taken a few twists and turns and is now relatively far from Aryeh's original question of "Does anyone object to public-webapps being used to discuss the HTML Editing spec?". I will start a separate RfC or CfC on that specific question. In the meantime, if you want to continue discussions that go beyond the narrow scope of the original question, I ask that you *please* continue on some other Public list (perhaps www-talk or www-archive) and not use public-webapps. Some very good points about general process issues have been raised in this thread. I am not trying to stop discussions on the broader process issues. On the contrary, I encourage everyone to continue those discussions elsewhere (perhaps use www-archive as the default?). (I have previously proposed the W3C create a Public mail list for general process-related discussions but received negative feedback. I will try again and will report back if I get some "joy"). -AB On 9/16/11 2:20 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> wrote: >> Yes, you have a public domain document, and yes, you're likely in the same >> boat as Tab Atkins: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1265.html >> "The editor is the *lowest* level in the hierarchy of constituencies" >> >> The "vendor" implementation is the highest level... Your company has the >> full vertical. > Incorrect. Browsers are below authors, who are below users. The full > hierarchy of constituencies that I and several others subscribe to is: > > 1. Users > 2. Authors > 3. Implementors > 4. Spec Authors / Theoretical Purity (these two levels are close > enough that they're not really useful to distinguish, I think) > > >> They use that position to knock-down use cases. When a use case serves >> Google Docs, or Gmail, it's heard. When it does not, it's shuttered. > That's quite a forceful statement. It's also completely untrue. For > example, I have never talked to the Gmail team about my work. I've > talked to Docs, but only about CSSOM measurement APIs because it's > hard to gather concrete use-cases for some of these things even though > they're obviously useful. > > I would appreciate not being publicly slandered in the future. > > ~TJ
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 18:44:35 UTC