Neither I nor Adobe oppose, are trying to sabotage, stop, slow down, hinder, or harm HTML5, Canvas 2D Graphics, Microdata, video in HTML, or any of the other significant features in HTML5.
No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, "blocked" in the W3C HTML Working Group -- not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata -- not by me, not by Adobe.
Claims otherwise are false. Any other disclaimers needed?
There are some things that are wrong with the spec I'd like to see fixed. There are some things that are really, really, wrong with the process that I'd like to improve.
I've been working on web standards since the beginning of the web in the early 90s, and standards for even longer; long before I joined Adobe. My opinions don't come from Adobe, and I don't get approval or direction. I hate to see decades of work on web architecture messed up in the short-term interest of grabbing control of the web platform for a few vendors to own.
As for the HTML standards process: I've worked in scores of standards groups in IETF and W3C, as well as a few others here and there, and I've never seen anything as bad as this one, with people abusing their official positions to grandstand and promote proprietary advantage. I've blogged some about this, but I'd rather fix things along.
I think progress of HTML5 in W3C could be faster if the subsections on graphics and metadata could (if not now, then eventually) be moved to separate subgroups focused on those topics. Several parts of what is generally known as HTML5 are already handed separate groups, such as W3C WebApps, GeoLocation, DAP, and CSS groups.
The documents are already published, at WHATWG and as Editor's Draft. The question was about taking a snapshot of the published Editor's Draft and marking them "Working Draft". The organization of work in W3C is determined by the "charters" of working group and the "scope" of he charters. Saying some documents are "out of scope" for one group means you might move the work to another group, or might just rewrite the "Status of This Document" section of them to say that they might move later. Working group's publish documents that are "out of scope" all the time, they just don't claim otherwise in their Status section. So changing the Status section what I was asking for, in the somewhat stilted language of "objection".
If you want to know who is sending in technical objections, you can see the working group mailing list at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/
. And if you want to see more of my opinions, I'm also on the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) and post there a lot, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
; the TAG often discusses HTML5.
Any more questions about my opinion? My email address should be easy to find.