W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2019

RE: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:04:25 -0700
To: "'Jeff Jaffe'" <jeff@w3.org>, "'Chris Wilson'" <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'W3C TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Florian Rivoal'" <florian@rivoal.net>
Message-ID: <009001d56c00$c6e369d0$54aa3d70$@acm.org>
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




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






Received on Sunday, 15 September 2019 20:04:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:17 UTC