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

Apologies to Tab and Aryeh,

I did not mean to suggest that they, nor their employer, have any bad 
intent in the specs process.

I have no doubt, that they have the best of intentions.


On 9/16/11 12:06 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> 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" here.
> 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. ^_^
> Thanks-
> -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 21:21:48 UTC