W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Re: I am Spartacus! [was Re: revert requests]

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:36:48 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Zx2Nh2=9XWnXcR3sRywADbLahaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Thanks, below you've nicely expressed what I thought was the case -
that you are (in whatever role) extremely valuable to the WG because
you can keep your eye on the ball. No criticism implied to Sam, as far
as is possible he's been doing a fine job of kitten-herding, but with
being in deep he's not really in a position to control the bigger

What can I say but keep being uppity Shelley :)


On 19 June 2011 06:29, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
> On 6/18/2011 5:07 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> Shelley - I wasn't suggesting speaking for you per se, just acting as
>> a transparent conduit (while still being happily responsible for any
>> repercussions).
> Sure, understood.
>>> I will NOT skulk in the background like a naughty girl not allowed in the
>>> clubhouse.
>> What I've found most annoying since getting closer to this group isn't
>> the clubhouseness (I find myself agreeing with the WHATWG boys a lot
>> more than I'd ever have expected) but the antics of one particular
>> naughty boy in the showers.
> I'm more concerned about the fact that for all the talk of procedures, there
> is no real control over HTML5. It's an ugly mess that threatens to get
> worse, not better.
> What happens in six months when the WebGL group suddenly decides they need
> something else in HTML5? Or some other group comes along and breathlessly
> states how they must have this, or that, or whatever?
> For all the talk of "Living HTML", all the stuff still finds its way back to
> the W3C and HTML5--but via the backdoor. It is the worst of all possible
> worlds.
> Consider the recent change related to crossorigin and CORS. This was a
> change specifically related to security, and the relaxing of security.  More
> caution, rather than less, should be spent with anything security related,
> yet this was added with _no interaction on the part of the HTML WG, at all_.
> It was extending a concept that evolved for one purpose for another, without
> necessarily even being aware of why such an extension was necessary in the
> first place.
> In the meantime, the accessibility group has spent three years fighting to
> save one attribute. One single attribute that existed in HTML4, has no
> ramifications from a security standpoint, and few potential negative
> consequences.
> Broken. How can a person look at this and _not_ see how broken all of this
> is?
>> I guess you should sign up again, Shelley.
> Not an option.
> But thank you again for your offer. And best of luck with your continued
> participation with the HTML WG.
> Regards,
> Shelley

Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 11:37:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:58 UTC