10 ms·

For some clarity: - Mozilla's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380771954 https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380771

For some clarity: - Mozilla's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380771954 https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380771954 - Apple's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380534425 https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380534425 - Microsoft's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/176 https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/176 - Google's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/177 https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/177

ma2rten 9y ago
It's interesting that a formal objection is done by creating an issue on github.
- gfo 9y ago
  A sign of the times perhaps? It makes sense given the repository, but of course, it does make it challenging to verify the authenticity of the request when, for all we know by looking at the messages, they could be random users.
  - xnyanta 9y ago
    It does say that they are members of the W3C organization.
    - klez 9y ago
      So could I. I mean, I see what you mean, but to a casual observer that's not very clear.
      - solarkraft 9y ago
        Your objection is funny. Other methods of communication could be faked. Here you have Github as an authority to check membership and the organisation's repositories as an official place of discussion (perhaps equivalent to the website). You do have to trust that the org is legitimate, but you could also fake a website or a whole organisaion.
      - Ajedi32 9y ago
        GP is referring to the "Member" badge next to the commenter's name, not to any claims made in the comments themselves. You could claim to be a member of the W3C, but unless you actually are that badge won't show up next to your name in the issue tracker.
        apaprocki 9y ago
        The GitHub org member list is not going to be an authoritative list of all delegates from all members that all have GH accounts. One of our W3C participants conveyed our objection and he isn't in the GH w3c org member list.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Any group discussion could be "random users" to an outsider. To people at W3C, or even to people who just follow web standards development, the names are pretty instantly recognizable, and presumably since these accounts have been added to the W3C's GitHub org, W3C feels confident that they are who they claim to be.
colanderman 9y ago
Thanks. The TL;DR seems to be that, instead of sticking to documenting what is, the W3C is (either deliberately or through incompetence) trying to push their own "vision" for DOM 4.1 without browser buy-in.
- c-smile 9y ago
  That does not mean that it is a good thing to put all bells and whistles from different browser vendors under the same umbrella. Let's say you are a) owning and b) managing a project that three competing teams are working on in parallel. If you will not curate the project you will have one team adding <marquee> and another team adding <blink>... In real world you would invite dedicated architect or team of architects to define the spec that all 3 teams will implement. All that WHATWG vs W3C flame is about bazaar vs cathedral management style I think. Origins of the mess: W3C itself has no architects on board - they are just trying to moderate votes of others. Where each vote has an obvious weight (weight(Google) > weight(JohnButSmart)). In contrary WHATWG has professional architect on top of the construct - Ian Hickson. In fact WHATWG was created by him. But Ian is associated with Google and that makes WHATWG legitimacy a bit questionable.
  - make3 9y ago
    the formal complaints of all browser people seem to support the WHATWG
    - ttepasse 9y ago
      The browser people are the WHATWG. There are no other stakeholders in that.
      - domenicd 9y ago
        Not sure exactly what your comment is saying, but at least one reading is that "browsers are the only stakeholders in the WHATWG", which is not accurate. The WHATWG is a community organization open to participation by all; see https://whatwg.org/faq#process https://whatwg.org/faq#process for more. We receive a lot of participation from users, web developers, and other companies. There is a formal group, the Steering Group, which represents the browsers that implement WHATWG standards, and serves as the point of final appeal if the community doesn't come to a consensus on its own. But this is similar to the W3C appeals track where if all the paying member companies don't come to consensus, they appeal to "The Director" as the ultimate decider. ("The Director" is nominally Tim Berners-Lee, but recently all Director decisions have been made by W3C management "on behalf of" The Director.)

ma2rten 9y ago

It's interesting that a formal objection is done by creating an issue on github.

gfo 9y ago
A sign of the times perhaps? It makes sense given the repository, but of course, it does make it challenging to verify the authenticity of the request when, for all we know by looking at the messages, they could be random users.
- xnyanta 9y ago
  It does say that they are members of the W3C organization.
  - klez 9y ago
    So could I. I mean, I see what you mean, but to a casual observer that's not very clear.
    - solarkraft 9y ago
      Your objection is funny. Other methods of communication could be faked. Here you have Github as an authority to check membership and the organisation's repositories as an official place of discussion (perhaps equivalent to the website). You do have to trust that the org is legitimate, but you could also fake a website or a whole organisaion.
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      GP is referring to the "Member" badge next to the commenter's name, not to any claims made in the comments themselves. You could claim to be a member of the W3C, but unless you actually are that badge won't show up next to your name in the issue tracker.
      - apaprocki 9y ago
        The GitHub org member list is not going to be an authoritative list of all delegates from all members that all have GH accounts. One of our W3C participants conveyed our objection and he isn't in the GH w3c org member list.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Any group discussion could be "random users" to an outsider. To people at W3C, or even to people who just follow web standards development, the names are pretty instantly recognizable, and presumably since these accounts have been added to the W3C's GitHub org, W3C feels confident that they are who they claim to be.

colanderman 9y ago

Thanks. The TL;DR seems to be that, instead of sticking to documenting what is, the W3C is (either deliberately or through incompetence) trying to push their own "vision" for DOM 4.1 without browser buy-in.

c-smile 9y ago
That does not mean that it is a good thing to put all bells and whistles from different browser vendors under the same umbrella. Let's say you are a) owning and b) managing a project that three competing teams are working on in parallel. If you will not curate the project you will have one team adding <marquee> and another team adding <blink>... In real world you would invite dedicated architect or team of architects to define the spec that all 3 teams will implement. All that WHATWG vs W3C flame is about bazaar vs cathedral management style I think. Origins of the mess: W3C itself has no architects on board - they are just trying to moderate votes of others. Where each vote has an obvious weight (weight(Google) > weight(JohnButSmart)). In contrary WHATWG has professional architect on top of the construct - Ian Hickson. In fact WHATWG was created by him. But Ian is associated with Google and that makes WHATWG legitimacy a bit questionable.
- make3 9y ago
  the formal complaints of all browser people seem to support the WHATWG
  - ttepasse 9y ago
    The browser people are the WHATWG. There are no other stakeholders in that.
    - domenicd 9y ago
      Not sure exactly what your comment is saying, but at least one reading is that "browsers are the only stakeholders in the WHATWG", which is not accurate. The WHATWG is a community organization open to participation by all; see https://whatwg.org/faq#process https://whatwg.org/faq#process for more. We receive a lot of participation from users, web developers, and other companies. There is a formal group, the Steering Group, which represents the browsers that implement WHATWG standards, and serves as the point of final appeal if the community doesn't come to a consensus on its own. But this is similar to the W3C appeals track where if all the paying member companies don't come to consensus, they appeal to "The Director" as the ultimate decider. ("The Director" is nominally Tim Berners-Lee, but recently all Director decisions have been made by W3C management "on behalf of" The Director.)