5 ms·

This isn't rejecting the original argument. The argument that Larry Masinter made was that canvas, microdata, and RDFa are outside of the scope of the charter (

This isn't rejecting the original argument. The argument that Larry Masinter made was that canvas, microdata, and RDFa are outside of the scope of the charter (as much as people wanted to believe, he was not arguing that they shouldn't be working on those items). Tim Berners Lee specifically says he agrees: "The work of the group has grown since it was chartered, and the charter document itself is no longer sufficiently explicit." There's no discrepancy here.

telemachos 17y ago
To say, "There's no discrepancy here" may be literally true if you focus on the issue of scope, but it misses the larger point. TBL said no to what Adobe wanted. You also left out key parts of the respopnse. Here's a fuller version: The work of the group has grown since it was chartered, and the charter document itself is no longer sufficiently explicit. (See recent W3C blog post on this topic [2]). This message clarifies what I consider to be within the scope of the group. I agree with the WG chairs that these items -- data and canvas -- are reasonable areas of work for the group. It is appropriate for the group to publish documents in this area.
- dougmccune 17y ago
  Right, and here's a message from Masinter: I think it would be fine to update the charter to include 2D Context as actually within scope if that's what the working group proposes and the Director and AC agree. I wouldn't object to that. (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0004.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0004...) Compared to the recent message from TBL: I am asking the domain lead to annotate the charter Unless there's a massive difference between update and annotate the charter that I'm unaware of those sound like exactly the same things. I'm not saying that Masinter didn't have any ulterior motives (but I'm also not saying he did). But the facts of what people have said in this debate always seem to get ignored in favor of the evil Adobe storyline.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    Politically, there is nothing Adobe can do now. TBL has the final say and he has spoken. Adobe is just doing what is best for their shareholders. Can't blame them really. Before HTML5, they had more of a monopoly than Microsoft had on the desktops when they were sued. Now Flash has competition with all the browsers. It's a mandate that they all have to do what they've just left to Adobe to handle with Flash. It'll be an interesting show. I for one am very excited about this because it eliminates a lot of uncertainty about the web as a platform moving forward.
    - voidpointer 17y ago
      Best for shareholders? It's not like they're making money from flash player. They're making money from content creation tools (i.e. Creative Suite). At this point it may be a bit easier for them to create Flash content but adding HTML5 to that mix should be doable. They are already creating native iphone apps with Flash authoring in CS5 (see http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/) Content creators will want to create content that is accessible to a wide audience with a good user experience. They will buy the tools that will allow them to do so efficiently. If that means HTML5 then that is where the money is and that is what shareholders will demand Adobe to support (follow the money). Furthermore HTML5 over Flash makes a good argument for people to buy upgrades to their Content Creation Tools. So there is even more money to be made with HTML5 for Adobe.
      - barrkel 17y ago
        Are you suggesting that having a monopoly on a platform isn't good for a company trying to leverage tools to target that platform?
        voidpointer 17y ago
        I'm mostly suggesting that Adobe's tools may not be tied to the Flash platform as much as it may seem.
      - 17y ago

telemachos 17y ago

To say, "There's no discrepancy here" may be literally true if you focus on the issue of scope, but it misses the larger point. TBL said no to what Adobe wanted. You also left out key parts of the respopnse. Here's a fuller version: The work of the group has grown since it was chartered, and the charter document itself is no longer sufficiently explicit. (See recent W3C blog post on this topic [2]). This message clarifies what I consider to be within the scope of the group. I agree with the WG chairs that these items -- data and canvas -- are reasonable areas of work for the group. It is appropriate for the group to publish documents in this area.

dougmccune 17y ago
Right, and here's a message from Masinter: I think it would be fine to update the charter to include 2D Context as actually within scope if that's what the working group proposes and the Director and AC agree. I wouldn't object to that. (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0004.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0004...) Compared to the recent message from TBL: I am asking the domain lead to annotate the charter Unless there's a massive difference between update and annotate the charter that I'm unaware of those sound like exactly the same things. I'm not saying that Masinter didn't have any ulterior motives (but I'm also not saying he did). But the facts of what people have said in this debate always seem to get ignored in favor of the evil Adobe storyline.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Politically, there is nothing Adobe can do now. TBL has the final say and he has spoken. Adobe is just doing what is best for their shareholders. Can't blame them really. Before HTML5, they had more of a monopoly than Microsoft had on the desktops when they were sued. Now Flash has competition with all the browsers. It's a mandate that they all have to do what they've just left to Adobe to handle with Flash. It'll be an interesting show. I for one am very excited about this because it eliminates a lot of uncertainty about the web as a platform moving forward.
  - voidpointer 17y ago
    Best for shareholders? It's not like they're making money from flash player. They're making money from content creation tools (i.e. Creative Suite). At this point it may be a bit easier for them to create Flash content but adding HTML5 to that mix should be doable. They are already creating native iphone apps with Flash authoring in CS5 (see http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/) Content creators will want to create content that is accessible to a wide audience with a good user experience. They will buy the tools that will allow them to do so efficiently. If that means HTML5 then that is where the money is and that is what shareholders will demand Adobe to support (follow the money). Furthermore HTML5 over Flash makes a good argument for people to buy upgrades to their Content Creation Tools. So there is even more money to be made with HTML5 for Adobe.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      Are you suggesting that having a monopoly on a platform isn't good for a company trying to leverage tools to target that platform?
      - voidpointer 17y ago
        I'm mostly suggesting that Adobe's tools may not be tied to the Flash platform as much as it may seem.
    - 17y ago