On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text editing as
> a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
> specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers to author
> editing environments.
It is not accurate to refer to the specification as Google or WHATWG.
It's in the public domain, so Google has no more right to it than
anyone else. Google paid for its development up to this point, but no
one from Google but me has exercised any discretion as to its
contents, and I'll continue working on it under different employment
if necessary. The spec has nothing to do with the WHATWG, except that
I used their mailing list for a while.
Google's support of editors is a net benefit for all of us. I greatly
appreciate the CC0 license that you and other editors have put onto your
specs.
That said, Google's support of various editors that have disdain for W3C
process, has real-world consequences.
You're not alone, amongst your co-workers when you state:
"I don't believe that the W3C Process is useful, and in fact I think
it's actively harmful"
I don't think it's malicious. But, Google has unprecedented control over
these W3C specs.
They are absolutely using that control to benefit their priorities.
That's their right, as you say:
"my time is my own or my employer's, and no one else has any right to
place demands on how I spend it".
This puts non-vendors in a bad situation. Where Google has purchased the
space to play both sides of the game, the rest of us are struggling to
have our use cases accepted as legitimate. By funding so many editors,
for so many years, they gained control of the specs. That's fine... But
the specs are now driven by individuals who have no deference to the
W3C, and thus, no deference to the use cases that various member
organizations and developers are -actively- engaged in.
Yes, you have a public domain document, and yes, you're likely in the
same boat as Tab Atkins:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1265.html
"The editor is the *lowest* level in the hierarchy of constituencies"
The "vendor" implementation is the highest level... Your company has the
full vertical.
They use that position to knock-down use cases. When a use case serves
Google Docs, or Gmail, it's heard. When it does not, it's shuttered.
That's a problem. And it comes up again and again. With all of the best
intentions, you are a part of that group.
It's not a malicious interaction, it's not something I'm overly
concerned about. But it is real.
Lucky for all of us, WebKit is open source, it's very open to community
contributions, and the upstream is shared by several major vendors.
-Charles
