3 ms·

I read the public mailing list thread - starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0349.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/publi

I read the public mailing list thread - starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0349.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0349... - and continues for quite some time. I came to the conclusion that Larry Masinter from Adobe did issue a formal objection to the public list - this is quite obvious from this post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002... However, there was then further communication that took place in a private, members-only list, where apparently this objection was handled. What seems to be happening is either Adobe is innocently handling the process of raising objections incorrectly, by posting them in a public list, then withdrawing them privately later on, or Adobe is maliciously attempting to subvert the process through delaying tactics. I encourage you to read the thread and decide for yourself if Adobe is really innocent or is deliberately delaying. In considering such things, I usually like to look at what the parties have to gain/lose, as well as their actions.

boucher 17y ago
Well, if you read what the gentlemen from Adobe has said since, his objection on the private list was about how the chairs of whatever committee he raised his objections to basically made a unilateral decision without discussing the objections. So, at least according to him, the private list material is essentially objecting to the process by which his public objections were handled.
- illumin8 17y ago
  Yes, but since all objections are to be made in public, in order to foster transparency and documentation of the process, I have a hard time understanding why making private objections to those same individuals that he had publicly objected to before would help. If the process is truly broken, get it out in the public and document it. This reeks of the type of politics that is meant to kill something through subversion of the process and delaying tactics. If you can't kill HTML5 outright, kill the process of developing the standard and you've effectively done the same thing.
invisible 17y ago
It sounds, to me, that he is frustrated with the decision making process internally at W3C and committees that make decisions without a group discussion. It also sounds, to me, that he thinks HTML5 is bloated with things that could a) finish early and do not require anything in HTML5, or b) prevent the publication of HTML5 in a timely manner.

boucher 17y ago

Well, if you read what the gentlemen from Adobe has said since, his objection on the private list was about how the chairs of whatever committee he raised his objections to basically made a unilateral decision without discussing the objections. So, at least according to him, the private list material is essentially objecting to the process by which his public objections were handled.

illumin8 17y ago
Yes, but since all objections are to be made in public, in order to foster transparency and documentation of the process, I have a hard time understanding why making private objections to those same individuals that he had publicly objected to before would help. If the process is truly broken, get it out in the public and document it. This reeks of the type of politics that is meant to kill something through subversion of the process and delaying tactics. If you can't kill HTML5 outright, kill the process of developing the standard and you've effectively done the same thing.

invisible 17y ago

It sounds, to me, that he is frustrated with the decision making process internally at W3C and committees that make decisions without a group discussion. It also sounds, to me, that he thinks HTML5 is bloated with things that could a) finish early and do not require anything in HTML5, or b) prevent the publication of HTML5 in a timely manner.