Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: With this understanding, and having not noticed any objections to Aryeh's proposal, I think we should consider Aryeh's proposal as accepted. Thank you. I've updated the spec and will use this list accordingly in the future: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/rev/20505f74e222
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
Hi Aryeh, All - Aryeh's response below clarifies my last question about the relationship between the HTML Editing APIs CG and WebApps. I think the main points are: * The members of the HTML Editing APIs CG do not think the HTML Editing APIs spec is ready for Recommendation track (and I don't believe anyone that responded to this thread suggested/recommended otherwise). * Given at least some parts of the spec originated in the HTML5 spec, this functionality is within the scope of WebApps' charter (as amended in 2010). * The HTML Editing CG would like to use public-webapps (and not their list) for its discussions because so many of the interested parties are already subscribed. * Contributions to specifications produced by the HTML Editing CG are governed by the Community Group CLA and the CG is responsible for ensuring that all Contributions come from participants that have agreed to the CLA for that group. With this understanding, and having not noticed any objections to Aryeh's proposal, I think we should consider Aryeh's proposal as accepted. -AB On 9/22/11 5:54 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It appears you are intentionally using comments here to differentiate contributions. Is that right? Right. I ask because, as I understand the CG process: before a person can make a contribution to a CG spec, they must agree to a CLA for all of the CG's specs; and a CG is only supposed to accept contributions from its CG members. If your CG uses WebApps' list, how will contributions from non-CG people be managed/tracked and how will the FSA be managed e.g. if non-CG contributions are accepted? I spoke with Ian Jacobs about this. He clarified that contributions only means spec text. To date, I've written all actual spec text myself, and I expect this to continue. It's usual that only the editor writes the actual text of the specifications they edit. If for some reason I wanted to accept spec text from someone else, they'd have to submit it through the CG and we'd ensure it was properly tracked for legal reasons. As I understand it, it couldn't be submitted on public-webapps, but that's not a problem -- I just want to use public-webapps for discussion.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
We're commenting on Aryeh's spec, he's the author, the copyright holder, and our comments to do not entitle us to any form of attribution. Expanded: For the sake of Aryeh's copyright on the working document, I'd like to remind everyone again, that their comments on the document will be reviewed by Aryeh, but the document itself is being authored and edited solely by Aryeh. For those responding or contributing to the document, with particular spec text, please keep in mind that there is a draft of the document is (c) Aryeh Gregor, and that document continues to be released into a license that does not require attribution. As with other specs, such as DOM4, the editor will maintain a build of that document which will be labeled under the typical copyright and licenses that the W3C uses. -Charles On 9/23/2011 1:09 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: * Contributions to specifications produced by the HTML Editing CG are governed by the Community Group CLA and the CG is responsible for ensuring that all Contributions come from participants that have agreed to the CLA for that group. With this understanding, and having not noticed any objections to Aryeh's proposal, I think we should consider Aryeh's proposal as accepted. -AB On 9/22/11 5:54 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It appears you are intentionally using comments here to differentiate contributions. Is that right? Right. I ask because, as I understand the CG process: before a person can make a contribution to a CG spec, they must agree to a CLA for all of the CG's specs; and a CG is only supposed to accept contributions from its CG members. If your CG uses WebApps' list, how will contributions from non-CG people be managed/tracked and how will the FSA be managed e.g. if non-CG contributions are accepted? I spoke with Ian Jacobs about this. He clarified that contributions only means spec text. To date, I've written all actual spec text myself, and I expect this to continue. It's usual that only the editor writes the actual text of the specifications they edit. If for some reason I wanted to accept spec text from someone else, they'd have to submit it through the CG and we'd ensure it was properly tracked for legal reasons. As I understand it, it couldn't be submitted on public-webapps, but that's not a problem -- I just want to use public-webapps for discussion.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On 9/19/11 1:56 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Since you are the Chair of the HTML Editing APIs CG [CG], would you please explain what you see as the relationship between the CG and WebApps vis-à-vis the Editing spec? In particular, what role(s) do the CG and WG have? I notice you asked a more general question here too that I didn't answer. My take is that the CG will be the group that publishes the editing spec for the foreseeable future. However, all discussion and development should occur in preexisting, established fora, preferably in the W3C. This means using fora that are specific to particular Working Groups, such as public-webapps, even though those Working Groups aren't formally involved in developing the editing spec. So currently, I don't see the WebApps WG as having any official role in developing the editing spec. I'd only like to be able to use its discussion list, since a lot of interested parties are already subscribed. It seems to me, that by virtue of using public-webapps, it does give WebApps WG a role e.g. to at least comment on the CG's editing spec. [Whether such a role is official or not is probably just splitting hairs.] And speaking of the spec, would you please clarify which spec is in scope for the CG: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html or: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/ Eventually, if it turns out to be necessary to move the spec to the REC track (although I hope it's not), Would you also please explain what you mean by your hoping it will *not* be necessary for the editing spec to move to the W3C's Recommendation track (f.ex. why do you feel this way)? Is there consensus within the CG to not move the spec to the REC track? -AB
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It seems to me, that by virtue of using public-webapps, it does give WebApps WG a role e.g. to at least comment on the CG's editing spec. [Whether such a role is official or not is probably just splitting hairs.] I absolutely would like comments from everyone who's interested, whether individuals or organizations or Working Groups. That applies no more to the WebApps WG than anyone else, though. I'm more interested in what the comments are than where they come from. And speaking of the spec, would you please clarify which spec is in scope for the CG: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html or: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/ They're the same. As you can see, the aryeh.name spec links to dvcs.w3.org as its primary version control. The script I use to update the aryeh.name spec (https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/file/ee2791b98b92/publish) also pushes the updates from my local git repository to dvcs.w3.org. Actually, I just realized you can view the same spec here: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html. DOM4 uses a dvcs.w3.org URL for its latest Editor's Draft, so I suppose I might as well too. I've changed the aryeh.name URLs to redirect to dvcs.w3.org, and updated the spec to link to those. There are no longer any aryeh.name URLs left in the spec except my e-mail address. Would you also please explain what you mean by your hoping it will *not* be necessary for the editing spec to move to the W3C's Recommendation track (f.ex. why do you feel this way)? I've explained myself at some length elsewhere, such as the first comment by me here: https://plus.google.com/105458233028934590147/posts/h7nsT7wuNmX I later explained why I think Community Groups address a lot of the issues I see with the standard W3C procedures: https://plus.google.com/100662365103380396132/posts/TSCsoGYSC2h I hope that the Community Group initiative will be successful enough that it isn't perceived as necessary to move specs developed there to traditional W3C Working Groups. I'd like to see CGs become an alternative to WGs, not just a gateway to them. Is there consensus within the CG to not move the spec to the REC track? The spec is in the public domain and anyone can theoretically submit it to the REC track, so consensus isn't an issue either way. However, I hope others will not try to undermine the new Community Group process by taking its specs away until we've had a chance to give it a fair try. Perhaps experience will wind up demonstrating that the Process still serves a useful purpose for specs like HTML Editing APIs, but we won't know unless we try.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On 9/22/2011 9:43 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Is there consensus within the CG to not move the spec to the REC track? The spec is in the public domain and anyone can theoretically submit it to the REC track, so consensus isn't an issue either way. However, I hope others will not try to undermine the new Community Group process by taking its specs away until we've had a chance to give it a fair try. Perhaps experience will wind up demonstrating that the Process still serves a useful purpose for specs like HTML Editing APIs, but we won't know unless we try. Does it have to be an either-or situation? Given that there are pressures to publish in REC, to have a version which follows various procedures, it seems plausible that the two can coexist. I don't see the conflict. The CG would continue to author the spec, while HTML5 might have a slightly different spec at times, when W3C process drives the decision-making in a direction that differs from your own. The Makefile helps you as an editor maintain a fork with minimal effort. I don't think it's undermining the process of the CG if there are people working outside of the CG. Given your weight as an editor, I'm certain that Editor Free Draft will always be given due attention. Though it's sometimes cumbersome, I've accepted that I must review at least two drafts when looking at specs these days. I'm at peace with that, now. In some part, it's actually helpful, as more voices are heard. -Charles
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
Thanks for your clarifications Aryeh. One follow-up below re contributions to the Editing spec ... On 9/22/11 12:43 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It seems to me, that by virtue of using public-webapps, it does give WebApps WG a role e.g. to at least comment on the CG's editing spec. [Whether such a role is official or not is probably just splitting hairs.] I absolutely would like*comments* from everyone who's interested, whether individuals or organizations or Working Groups. It appears you are intentionally using comments here to differentiate contributions. Is that right? I ask because, as I understand the CG process: before a person can make a contribution to a CG spec, they must agree to a CLA for all of the CG's specs; and a CG is only supposed to accept contributions from its CG members. If your CG uses WebApps' list, how will contributions from non-CG people be managed/tracked and how will the FSA be managed e.g. if non-CG contributions are accepted? -AB
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: Does it have to be an either-or situation? Given that there are pressures to publish in REC, to have a version which follows various procedures, it seems plausible that the two can coexist. That's true, but there's no rush to create an extra copy. The spec wouldn't be ready for CR for at least a year or two, so there's no advantage at all to having extra EDs and WDs floating around. People can give feedback on the preliminary drafts just as well whether it's officially on REC track or not. If it proves to be useful to have a copy published in the WebApps WG too, that can easily be arranged later. For the time being, I would like to use this opportunity to test whether Community Groups can stand on their own *without* merely being satellites of regular Working Groups. For instance, Community Groups have their own patent policy, and it remains to be seen whether that will be effective enough without the regular patent policy being applicable to the same drafts. We won't find out if the same draft is covered by the regular patent policy as well. If there are any deficiencies with Community Groups as compared to regular Working Groups, we won't find out if the draft is a Working Group deliverable too. Again, none of this is to deny the possibility of the draft eventually being moved to REC track. But I don't yet want to deny the possibility of the draft *not* being moved to REC track, either. We should keep our options open until we see how well CGs work. Though it's sometimes cumbersome, I've accepted that I must review at least two drafts when looking at specs these days. I'm at peace with that, now. I'm not. I would like to avoid multiple drafts if at all possible. Fortunately, no notable spec but HTML5 (and semi-broken-off parts like Web Sockets or Web Workers) has multiple versions that are appreciably different. If there wind up being multiple drafts for licensing or patent reasons, I'd expect them to be exact mirrors, as with DOM4.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It appears you are intentionally using comments here to differentiate contributions. Is that right? Right. I ask because, as I understand the CG process: before a person can make a contribution to a CG spec, they must agree to a CLA for all of the CG's specs; and a CG is only supposed to accept contributions from its CG members. If your CG uses WebApps' list, how will contributions from non-CG people be managed/tracked and how will the FSA be managed e.g. if non-CG contributions are accepted? I spoke with Ian Jacobs about this. He clarified that contributions only means spec text. To date, I've written all actual spec text myself, and I expect this to continue. It's usual that only the editor writes the actual text of the specifications they edit. If for some reason I wanted to accept spec text from someone else, they'd have to submit it through the CG and we'd ensure it was properly tracked for legal reasons. As I understand it, it couldn't be submitted on public-webapps, but that's not a problem -- I just want to use public-webapps for discussion.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
Aryeh - coming back to your question below ... Since you are the Chair of the HTML Editing APIs CG [CG], would you please explain what you see as the relationship between the CG and WebApps vis-à-vis the Editing spec? In particular, what role(s) do the CG and WG have? For example [1] indicates the CG already has a mail list (public-editing) so when would it be used versus public-webapps? -Thanks, AB [CG] http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ On 9/13/11 4:27 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:48:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Aryeh - coming back to your question below ... Since you are the Chair of the HTML Editing APIs CG [CG], would you please explain what you see as the relationship between the CG and WebApps vis-à-vis the Editing spec? In particular, what role(s) do the CG and WG have? For example [1] indicates the CG already has a mail list (public-editing) so when would it be used versus public-webapps? I think we do not want to use public-editing at all and replace it with public-webapps. I believe the system in place at the moment for CGs does not allow that, but it can be done behind the scenes and is intended to work in such a way in the future I am told. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Aryeh - coming back to your question below ... Since you are the Chair of the HTML Editing APIs CG [CG], would you please explain what you see as the relationship between the CG and WebApps vis-à-vis the Editing spec? In particular, what role(s) do the CG and WG have? For example [1] indicates the CG already has a mail list (public-editing) so when would it be used versus public-webapps? I do not intend to use any of the mailing lists created for the CG at all. We don't need our own mailing lists -- it will just fragment discussion. The editing spec is too small to deserve its own list. If it turns out we can use public-webapps, I'll ask that the links on the CG page point only to that, and that the CG lists be deleted. If the CG lists have to continue to exist for whatever reason, I'll make sure to tell anyone who uses them to use public-webapps instead. If we can't use public-webapps, then I'll continue using the whatwg list instead. I won't use editing-only lists regardless.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Since you are the Chair of the HTML Editing APIs CG [CG], would you please explain what you see as the relationship between the CG and WebApps vis-à-vis the Editing spec? In particular, what role(s) do the CG and WG have? I notice you asked a more general question here too that I didn't answer. My take is that the CG will be the group that publishes the editing spec for the foreseeable future. However, all discussion and development should occur in preexisting, established fora, preferably in the W3C. This means using fora that are specific to particular Working Groups, such as public-webapps, even though those Working Groups aren't formally involved in developing the editing spec. So currently, I don't see the WebApps WG as having any official role in developing the editing spec. I'd only like to be able to use its discussion list, since a lot of interested parties are already subscribed. Eventually, if it turns out to be necessary to move the spec to the REC track (although I hope it's not), I expect that will be at the WebApps WG, given its charter. But that's not an immediate consideration.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
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
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
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
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: 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. Google has exercised no control over my spec. I've written it entirely at my own discretion. Various individuals have given me feedback publicly or privately about the spec, and I've taken their feedback into consideration based on what I think its technical merits are. The two people who have the most influence are Ehsan Akhgari (Mozilla) and Ryosuke Niwa (Google), because they're the ones who will be implementing it. I don't give Ryosuke any more say than Ehsan just because he works for Google. Nor do I care more about Google products than others, except to the extent that they're more popular or I'm more familiar with them or the teams that develop them give more or better feedback. Just to be absolutely clear here: I'm an outside contractor working for Google. I have never set foot inside a Google office, nor do I have access to any internal Google mailing lists or other resources. The only time I've met in person with anyone from Google about my work was at a two-day Mozilla/Google meetup a few weeks back at Mozilla Toronto. The only person within Google who has any direct authority over my work is Ian Hickson, and he hasn't read most of the spec, let alone told me how I should write it. Google employees send me feedback publicly and privately, but so do others. The extent of Google's involvement with my work is Hixie suggesting I work on HTML editing, and me submitting an invoice occasionally and getting paid. If you want to say that in the end I only care what browser implementers think, that's a fair point. But Google has nothing to do with 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. Google has no control over the specs in practice. Individuals do, who in some cases are paid by Google. I am not receiving any marching orders from higher-ups beyond write specs for browsers to implement, and from what I've heard, the same is true for regular employees of Google too. If you would like to criticize our approaches to spec writing, criticize them as the individual opinions they are, not as part of a plot by Google. 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. Point me to anywhere where I ignore use-cases because of who presented them. (Obviously, except for the fact that I'll prioritize use-cases that affect more users.) I'll listen very seriously to what anyone on the Gmail or Docs team says, but no more than Yahoo! Mail or TinyMCE or any other major HTML editing developers. The goal is to make APIs that anyone can use. All this is beside the point, though. If you want more feedback from W3C stakeholders, then you should be happy that I want to use the public-webapps list.
Whoa! [Was: Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion]
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 Pritchardch...@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
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
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,
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
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,
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:31:40 +0200, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: [...] A Community Group means publishing it through the W3C. He's also asking it to be discussed on a W3C mailing list. This list. Compared to Aryeh's draft the specification that was in HTML before is unimplementable. I have a hard time understanding what you are complaining about. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email. Aryeh told me there are some related bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425 Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) opinion on Aryeh's question below? I should point out that the WebApps WG's charter lets it take on specs split out from HTML5. For such specs to be merely discussed here should be no impingement on the HTML WG's scope, a fortiori. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: I don't see Shelley Powers' objection being addressed. She has expressed concerns that the HTML Editing APIs have been taken out of W3C WGs and associated processes. Your wording suggests that the functionality was ever meaningfully specified within a W3C WG. This is not the case. The specification text in the HTML5 draft was unusable and would have had to be removed eventually anyway, because it was untestably vague. The current HTML Editing APIs specification was written from scratch and was never within the W3C until now, when it's been moved into a Community Group. Community Groups are within the W3C. Presumably the reason the W3C created Community Groups is because it would like people to use them for specification development, so using them for that purpose seems like it should be uncontroversial. The specification is not covered by W3C's Process, but in my opinion that's a good thing, for reasons I have laid out elsewhere in detail. 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. You can refer to it as the HTML editing specification, since it's the only one. Or the HTML Editing APIs specification, to use its title. If you would like to disambiguate, you can refer to it as mine, since I'm the author and editor. Aryeh, consider releasing more authority to the W3C process. The specification is fairly mature, I'm not seeing push-back on this spec, and I know that there are several voices which would better served through formal process. I disagree. I don't believe that the W3C Process is useful, and in fact I think it's actively harmful, at least for the type of spec I'm working on. I support the W3C Community Groups initiative and believe it will serve a very valuable purpose, and I object to others' attempts to undermine the W3C's goals in undertaking that initiative. If it eventually does prove useful to move the specification to REC track, that can easily be done at any later date. There is nothing to gain and much to lose by prematurely abandoning this trial of the W3C's bold and commendable attempt to introduce alternative, less cumbersome ways to develop web specifications. Also, try to get this onto the hg repositories, in the same style that DOM4 has been entered. It works well for maintaining your CC0/WHATWG labels while also providing the W3C with a publishable draft under their own restrictions. The authoritative version control history has been at dvcs.w3.org since Ian Jacobs gave me access a couple of days ago: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing Note that this is the first link for version history at the top of the draft, with the second one being a github mirror for those who prefer git: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html Currently the specification itself is still hosted at aryeh.name because the Community Group technical infrastructure isn't finished yet. As soon as I'm able to post an up-to-date version of the spec at w3.org, I'll move it there and change the aryeh.name URL to a redirect.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email. Aryeh told me there are some related bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425 Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) opinion on Aryeh's question below? I should point out that the WebApps WG's charter lets it take on specs split out from HTML5. For such specs to be merely discussed here should be no impingement on the HTML WG's scope, a fortiori. I appreciate you bringing the spec to this group. I'll find time to review and comment.
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email. Aryeh told me there are some related bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425 Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) opinion on Aryeh's question below? -Art Barstow On 9/13/11 4:27 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
On 9/14/11 4:30 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email. Aryeh told me there are some related bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425 Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) opinion on Aryeh's question below? -Art Barstow On 9/13/11 4:27 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote: For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec? I'm happy to see this spec continued on the webapps WG. I don't see Shelley Powers' objection being addressed. She has expressed concerns that the HTML Editing APIs have been taken out of W3C WGs and associated processes. 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. Because this is the only approved method of editing HTML content, and I've seen -no- controversy around the specification itself, I'd like Shelley Powers' position reconsidered by the editors. Were Apple, Google and Microsoft to loosen their position on rich text editing, such that authors can proceed with rich text editing that does not rely on this specification, I'd be less concerned. I don't think that'll happen for the next ~18 months. Aryeh, consider releasing more authority to the W3C process. The specification is fairly mature, I'm not seeing push-back on this spec, and I know that there are several voices which would better served through formal process. Also, try to get this onto the hg repositories, in the same style that DOM4 has been entered. It works well for maintaining your CC0/WHATWG labels while also providing the W3C with a publishable draft under their own restrictions. -Charles
[editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
I think it's a great idea to get your spec more attention in W3C community specially because some UA vendors don't participate in discussions on whatwg. - Ryosuke On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote: For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion
I support this. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: I think it's a great idea to get your spec more attention in W3C community specially because some UA vendors don't participate in discussions on whatwg. - Ryosuke On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote: For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the WebApps WG.) Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
