Hi All,
This thread has taken a few twists and turns and is now relatively far
from Aryeh's original question of "Does anyone object to public-webapps
being used to discuss the HTML Editing spec?". I will start a separate
RfC or CfC on that specific question.
In the meantime, if you want to continue discussions that go beyond the
narrow scope of the original question, I ask that you *please* continue
on some other Public list (perhaps www-talk or www-archive) and not use
public-webapps. Some very good points about general process issues have
been raised in this thread. I am not trying to stop discussions on the
broader process issues. On the contrary, I encourage everyone to
continue those discussions elsewhere (perhaps use www-archive as the
default?).
(I have previously proposed the W3C create a Public mail list for
general process-related discussions but received negative feedback. I
will try again and will report back if I get some "joy").
-AB
On 9/16/11 2:20 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard<ch...@jumis.com> wrote:
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.
Incorrect. Browsers are below authors, who are below users. The full
hierarchy of constituencies that I and several others subscribe to is:
1. Users
2. Authors
3. Implementors
4. Spec Authors / Theoretical Purity (these two levels are close
enough that they're not really useful to distinguish, I think)
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 quite a forceful statement. It's also completely untrue. For
example, I have never talked to the Gmail team about my work. I've
talked to Docs, but only about CSSOM measurement APIs because it's
hard to gather concrete use-cases for some of these things even though
they're obviously useful.
I would appreciate not being publicly slandered in the future.
~TJ
