3 ms·

And Masinter's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0874.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0874... Can

And Masinter's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0874.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0874... Can we all hold hands and sing kumbaya now? The thing I find sad is that in what was really a civil conversation in which various parties raised objections, others responded to objections, and action will (?) be taken, the outcome is that Masinter is now branded as HTML hating corporate a-hole and Berners-Lee will be seen as the white knight that defeated Adobe. When the reality is that respectful adults worked out their differences in an impressively polite manner. But that's not nearly as exciting a story.

kelnos 17y ago
It's hard to tell what to believe, really. Just because the public discourse was polite and diplomatic, it doesn't mean that what's underneath it all was just as chill. But I don't know, and I suspect you (or really anyone else posting here) don't really know either. We have very little to go on. But I do agree with your point that, at least in public, it appears that people were able to resolve the situation respectfully and politely. Even if, worst case, Adobe was trying to derail HTML5, and now Larry Masinter is fuming behind the scenes due to his failure to do so, it was all handled very well and we should be pleased that such level-headed individuals are involved in shaping the future of the web.
- masinter 17y ago
  The only thing that keeps me fuming is that anyone took the initial accusation seriously in the first place. There was no secret conspiracy, really! There couldn't have been. There's a lot of speculation in this thread that I think is wrong, but is it worth correcting it all? I've put a lot of my career into making web standards useful, clear, architecturally coherent, extensible, and I'm not interested in slowing down features or adoption into the open web platform. I'm a big fan of open systems, and I think in the end they benefit everyone. But "open" really does mean "transparent": tell the truth, don't mislead. Assume people really look at the charter of a working group and believe what it says, without having to squint and look at it sideways. I'm fuming a bit about how I can't defend my credibility to people who think I'm a liar, since saying I'm not.... well, it's just more evidence of how much of a liar I am, isn't it? While I've had a lot of experience with rough-and-tumble standards groups (chairing the HTTP group in the 90s wasn't easy), this seems a lot worse, but maybe it's because I'm getting the brunt of it this time.

kelnos 17y ago

It's hard to tell what to believe, really. Just because the public discourse was polite and diplomatic, it doesn't mean that what's underneath it all was just as chill. But I don't know, and I suspect you (or really anyone else posting here) don't really know either. We have very little to go on. But I do agree with your point that, at least in public, it appears that people were able to resolve the situation respectfully and politely. Even if, worst case, Adobe was trying to derail HTML5, and now Larry Masinter is fuming behind the scenes due to his failure to do so, it was all handled very well and we should be pleased that such level-headed individuals are involved in shaping the future of the web.

masinter 17y ago
The only thing that keeps me fuming is that anyone took the initial accusation seriously in the first place. There was no secret conspiracy, really! There couldn't have been. There's a lot of speculation in this thread that I think is wrong, but is it worth correcting it all? I've put a lot of my career into making web standards useful, clear, architecturally coherent, extensible, and I'm not interested in slowing down features or adoption into the open web platform. I'm a big fan of open systems, and I think in the end they benefit everyone. But "open" really does mean "transparent": tell the truth, don't mislead. Assume people really look at the charter of a working group and believe what it says, without having to squint and look at it sideways. I'm fuming a bit about how I can't defend my credibility to people who think I'm a liar, since saying I'm not.... well, it's just more evidence of how much of a liar I am, isn't it? While I've had a lot of experience with rough-and-tumble standards groups (chairing the HTTP group in the 90s wasn't easy), this seems a lot worse, but maybe it's because I'm getting the brunt of it this time.