Apologies to Tab and Aryeh,
I did not mean to suggest that they, nor their employer, have any bad
intent in the specs process.
I have no doubt, that they have the best of intentions.
-Charles
On 9/16/11 12:06 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Charles-
I understand that it is frustrating to butt heads with a set of people
who all share similar perspective and priorities, if you do not share
those particular views.
However, I don't think it's productive to impute that a specific
company is pushing their agenda, or blocking progress on other
efforts. For example, I've spoken to many Google people with
different perspectives and goals (often at odds with other Googlers),
and there are also many people outside Google who share some of the
same opinions and methods as Hixie, Tab, and Aryeh, like Anne, Ms2ger,
Marcos, Maciej, and many others (though there are many ways in which
they all differ, as well).
Nor is this the only cadre of like minds in W3C and web standards; the
accessibility community, the XML community, the SVG community... many
people with similar backgrounds or interests tend to bond and work
together toward a goal.
Google is a diverse company with a wide diversity of opinions, like
many companies; if they are active in web standards, it should be no
surprise, since they are a Web company, with a search engine, browser,
advertising service, and many prominent webapps. I don't think it's
accurate or productive to single Google out as some sort of "bad
player" here.
If you differ with individuals or sets of individuals, that is
certainly a valid critique, is it is kept to the topic of process,
working methods, or technical matters. Please don't stray into the
slippery slope of accusing companies of malice. Instead, raise
technical issues, with solid use cases and requirements, and defend
your point.
That said, if you (or anyone) believe that there is collusion or
willful or abusive disregard of comments (yours or anyone else's),
then bring it to the attention of me or the chairs, and we will look
into it.
In the case of the HTML Editing APIs, I haven't seen anything
particularly harmful yet... we're in an experimental stage with
Community Groups, and I think it's healthy to look at alternative
working modes and processes.
So... please tone it down a bit... don't risk being seen as the guy
who screams, "Company X is evil!!!", because nobody listens to that
guy. ^_^
Thanks-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Developer Outreach
Project Coordinator, SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio WGs
On 9/16/11 1:44 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
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
