Originally Posted by shelleyp
I'm a member of the HTML WG, but I'm not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I'm only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I'm also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I'm a writer, for O'Reilly).
There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.
How would you know? You're not on the private mailing list.
"Since w3c-archive is Member-confidential, I'm not sure if I can convey
any more information than that on a public list. It is up to the
persons involved to decide whether to post any information publicly."http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0351.html
This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves.
And they told you on the mailing list that this issue was already addressed by the WG chairs:
the scope of the charter says:
"This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML
and the deliverables indicates:
"a language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents
and applications on the World Wide Web."
I don't think it sets boundaries on what ought to be part of the HTML
specification. Whether the figure, video, or data-* is inside the HTML5
specification or in an adjunct doesn't make a difference. We've been
encourage on several occasion to modularize the HTML specification
itself in fact. The Context 2D API was part of the HTML5 specification
even before the creation of the charter and was accepted as such by the
Working Group. One can argue that the scope of the working group is too
broad or too vague, but that's the scope that has been approved by the
W3C and its Director. The charter itself is up for renewal (or extension
by the Director) at the end of the year. That's an opportunity we can
take to refine it.
The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group's charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.
And this assertion is rebutted:
"I cannot comment on the contents of the mails in the private lists,but that mail from Larry Masinter is not the entire story. There are
further relevant details that are hidden in a member-only list, which
is what I explicitly disapprove of in my last email.
I would say the same of you. You accused the Google and Opera reps as essentially lying and creating FUD while you have zero
visibility into the private mailing list.
If Larry has been making problems for HTML5 (and related specs that the chairs believe are part of the charter) in private emails it's pretty hinky from the get go and not at all defensible.
"I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair.This was an abuse of the member-only lists.
Any Objection, potential
or not, should *always* take place on the public list. I am
disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions.I am glad that the Chairs are pretending that it doesn't exist until
it becomes public.
It should never have *not* been public, however.
This is not conducive to open standards development. Such actions
should be condemned by all responsible parties in this working group.
Or are you calling TJ a liar and FUDster as well? Because from where I sit, with the same access to info that you do (ie the public mailing list) you look like an Adobe shill. Especially given that has bothered to run around to random forums to defend Adobe which no other WG folks have bothered to do and attempt to squelch external discussion based on your "authority" on the matter.