Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

Hi, Charles-

I understand that it is frustrating to butt heads with a set of people 
who all share similar perspective and priorities, if you do not share 
those particular views.

However, I don't think it's productive to impute that a specific company 
is pushing their agenda, or blocking progress on other efforts.  For 
example, I've spoken to many Google people with different perspectives 
and goals (often at odds with other Googlers), and there are also many 
people outside Google who share some of the same opinions and methods as 
Hixie, Tab, and Aryeh, like Anne, Ms2ger, Marcos, Maciej, and many 
others (though there are many ways in which they all differ, as well).

Nor is this the only cadre of like minds in W3C and web standards; the 
accessibility community, the XML community, the SVG community... many 
people with similar backgrounds or interests tend to bond and work 
together toward a goal.

Google is a diverse company with a wide diversity of opinions, like many 
companies; if they are active in web standards, it should be no 
surprise, since they are a Web company, with a search engine, browser, 
advertising service, and many prominent webapps.  I don't think it's 
accurate or productive to single Google out as some sort of "bad player" 

If you differ with individuals or sets of individuals, that is certainly 
a valid critique, is it is kept to the topic of process, working 
methods, or technical matters.  Please don't stray into the slippery 
slope of accusing companies of malice.  Instead, raise technical issues, 
with solid use cases and requirements, and defend your point.

That said, if you (or anyone) believe that there is collusion or willful 
or abusive disregard of comments (yours or anyone else's), then bring it 
to the attention of me or the chairs, and we will look into it.

In the case of the HTML Editing APIs, I haven't seen anything 
particularly harmful yet... we're in an experimental stage with 
Community Groups, and I think it's healthy to look at alternative 
working modes and processes.

So... please tone it down a bit... don't risk being seen as the guy who 
screams, "Company X is evil!!!", because nobody listens to that guy. ^_^

-Doug Schepers
W3C Developer Outreach
Project Coordinator, SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio WGs

On 9/16/11 1:44 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>>> > Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text
>>> editing as
>>> > a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
>>> > specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers
>>> to author
>>> > editing environments.
>> It is not accurate to refer to the specification as Google or WHATWG.
>> It's in the public domain, so Google has no more right to it than
>> anyone else. Google paid for its development up to this point, but no
>> one from Google but me has exercised any discretion as to its
>> contents, and I'll continue working on it under different employment
>> if necessary. The spec has nothing to do with the WHATWG, except that
>> I used their mailing list for a while.
> Google's support of editors is a net benefit for all of us. I greatly
> appreciate the CC0 license that you and other editors have put onto your
> specs.
> That said, Google's support of various editors that have disdain for W3C
> process, has real-world consequences.
> You're not alone, amongst your co-workers when you state:
> "I don't believe that the W3C Process is useful, and in fact I think
> it's actively harmful"
> I don't think it's malicious. But, Google has unprecedented control over
> these W3C specs.
> They are absolutely using that control to benefit their priorities.
> That's their right, as you say:
> "my time is my own or my employer's, and no one else has any right to
> place demands on how I spend it".
> This puts non-vendors in a bad situation. Where Google has purchased the
> space to play both sides of the game, the rest of us are struggling to
> have our use cases accepted as legitimate. By funding so many editors,
> for so many years, they gained control of the specs. That's fine... But
> the specs are now driven by individuals who have no deference to the
> W3C, and thus, no deference to the use cases that various member
> organizations and developers are -actively- engaged in.
> Yes, you have a public domain document, and yes, you're likely in the
> same boat as Tab Atkins:
> "The editor is the *lowest* level in the hierarchy of constituencies"
> The "vendor" implementation is the highest level... Your company has the
> full vertical.
> 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 a problem. And it comes up again and again. With all of the best
> intentions, you are a part of that group.
> It's not a malicious interaction, it's not something I'm overly
> concerned about. But it is real.
> Lucky for all of us, WebKit is open source, it's very open to community
> contributions, and the upstream is shared by several major vendors.
> -Charles

Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 19:07:04 UTC