Re: Dissatisfaction with HTML WG

----- "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:

> But when you take a step back, remove your rose tinted 
> glasses and see that you are employed by one of the main backers of
> the WHATWG and the WHATWG is in fact running the W3C's HTML WG

> I thought that having the WHATWG and the W3C HTML WG work together in
> the (X)HTML5 process meant that both groups would balance each other
> out with their different ranges of experience. But instead we have the 
> WHATWG running both groups which means that the W3C HTML WG process
> has been corrupted and become pointless.

The way these paragraphs are phrased, it seems like you think the WHATWG and the W3C HTML WG are disjoint sets of people, when that is demonstrably not the case. It may be true that many of the members in the intersection of W3C HTML WG and WHATWG are in influential positions, but as far as I can tell they're there because of their skills, and because they've volunteered their efforts to improving the spec. The implication that people who disagree with you are "the WHATWG" and that the people who agree with you are "the W3C HTML WG" and that the two groups are at odds bothers me. I don't think it's productive to maintain these kinds of "us vs. them" attitudes, and I wish you would direct any objections you may have to the specific people involved rather than making blanket statements about the membership of any one group.

Gavin

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 06:39:55 UTC