Ignoring the “offense”/ “not I” part of the discussion
The main disagreement comes Jeff’s use of “% of membership” in
“- individuals from browsers are overrepresented (measured by % of membership) on the (TAG/AB/Nomcom/Oxx)”
And the assumptions that it implies, that percent of members who have big browser-maker groups as a measure of anything, or that the goals of the groups taken as a whole were substantially different to warrant calling the current amount “overrepresented” and implicitly unfair. For the most part, I think that’s worth questioning.
The issue is the implication for the “architecture” of the web allowing for high-performance simple but powerful implementations; not something you could evaluate feature by feature or working group-by-working group.
There is some questions about that a while back in the thread
https://twitter.com/wycats/status/1139681962308694016
and a thread starting with Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mdubinko/status/1077654386766008320
@mdubinko: Hot take: the insanely complicated HTML5 spec that WHATWG demanded, leads to the inevitable consequence of making all but a few implementations unviable. Hence Edge -> Blink. Hotter take: the XHTML modularization folks had it basically right, considering the long term.
See follow-up by our director
https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1106880655844143105
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2019 20:04:50 UTC