
Tim Berners-Lee rejects Adobe's procedural arguments - chanux
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0871.html
======
dougmccune
This isn't rejecting the original argument. The argument that Larry Masinter
made was that canvas, microdata, and RDFa are outside of the scope of the
charter (as much as people wanted to believe, he was not arguing that they
shouldn't be working on those items). Tim Berners Lee specifically says he
agrees:

"The work of the group has grown since it was chartered, and the charter
document itself is no longer sufficiently explicit."

There's no discrepancy here.

~~~
telemachos
To say, "There's no discrepancy here" may be literally true if you focus on
the issue of scope, but it misses the larger point. TBL said no to what Adobe
wanted. You also left out key parts of the respopnse. Here's a fuller version:

 _The work of the group has grown since it was chartered, and the charter
document itself is no longer sufficiently explicit. (See recent W3C blog post
on this topic [2]). This message clarifies what I consider to be within the
scope of the group.

I agree with the WG chairs that these items -- data and canvas -- are
reasonable areas of work for the group. It is appropriate for the group to
publish documents in this area._

~~~
dougmccune
Right, and here's a message from Masinter:

 _I think it would be fine to update the charter to include 2D Context as
actually within scope if that's what the working group proposes and the
Director and AC agree.

I wouldn't object to that._ (see [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
archive/2010Feb/0004...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
archive/2010Feb/0004.html))

Compared to the recent message from TBL: _I am asking the domain lead to
annotate the charter_

Unless there's a massive difference between _update_ and _annotate_ the
charter that I'm unaware of those sound like exactly the same things.

I'm not saying that Masinter didn't have any ulterior motives (but I'm also
not saying he did). But the facts of what people have said in this debate
always seem to get ignored in favor of the evil Adobe storyline.

~~~
othermaciej
There is a big difference between "update" and "annotate". The former requires
a multi-month review cycle with many opportunities for objection. The latter
just happens (apparently).

In addition, the way Tim phrased it implies that these items are already
arguably in scope, but let's make it more explicitly clear, as opposed to
implying that they were out of scope and a change is needed for them to be in
scope at all.

~~~
kelnos
Yes, exactly -- it felt like he was giving a big eye-roll to Adobe, followed
with a, "fine, if you're going to be annoying about it, I'm just going to add
a clarification that says we've been doing the right thing." Which is what he
appears to have already believed, but wants to make it explicit.

------
dougmccune
And Masinter's response: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2010Feb/0874...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2010Feb/0874.html)

Can we all hold hands and sing kumbaya now? The thing I find sad is that in
what was really a civil conversation in which various parties raised
objections, others responded to objections, and action will (?) be taken, the
outcome is that Masinter is now branded as HTML hating corporate a-hole and
Berners-Lee will be seen as the white knight that defeated Adobe. When the
reality is that respectful adults worked out their differences in an
impressively polite manner. But that's not nearly as exciting a story.

~~~
kelnos
It's hard to tell what to believe, really. Just because the public discourse
was polite and diplomatic, it doesn't mean that what's underneath it all was
just as chill. But I don't know, and I suspect you (or really anyone else
posting here) don't really know either. We have very little to go on.

But I do agree with your point that, at least in public, it appears that
people were able to resolve the situation respectfully and politely. Even if,
worst case, Adobe was trying to derail HTML5, and now Larry Masinter is fuming
behind the scenes due to his failure to do so, it was all handled very well
and we should be pleased that such level-headed individuals are involved in
shaping the future of the web.

~~~
masinter
The only thing that keeps me fuming is that anyone took the initial accusation
seriously in the first place. There was no secret conspiracy, really! There
couldn't have been.

There's a lot of speculation in this thread that I think is wrong, but is it
worth correcting it all?

I've put a lot of my career into making web standards useful, clear,
architecturally coherent, extensible, and I'm not interested in slowing down
features or adoption into the open web platform. I'm a big fan of open
systems, and I think in the end they benefit everyone.

But "open" really does mean "transparent": tell the truth, don't mislead.
Assume people really look at the charter of a working group and believe what
it says, without having to squint and look at it sideways.

I'm fuming a bit about how I can't defend my credibility to people who think
I'm a liar, since saying I'm not.... well, it's just more evidence of how much
of a liar I am, isn't it?

While I've had a lot of experience with rough-and-tumble standards groups
(chairing the HTTP group in the 90s wasn't easy), this seems a lot worse, but
maybe it's because I'm getting the brunt of it this time.

------
pingswept
I find this intriguing, but not comprehensible.

Does there exist someone who could explain the significance of what Sir B-L is
saying? If you are that person, please do.

As I understand the background: Adobe has been bungling around on some secret
mailing list about Flash and HTML 5. Mark Pilgrim has made fun of them for
wanting to keep what's public secret. Now, they are getting their come-
uppance. Yes?

~~~
bbatsell
As I understand the situation:

Adobe's representative to the WHATWG, Larry Masinter, filed a formal objection
(FO) on a private WHATWG mailing list to the publication of the HTML5 standard
because the standard, at present, includes extensions to HTML such as Canvas
and RDFa that Masinter believes are beyond the scope of what HTML5 was
supposed to entail, as outlined in the working group's charter.

Since Canvas, in particular, would be very beneficial to those wishing to
emulate Adobe Flash's capabilities using solely HTML5, ECMAScript, and CSS,
some have interpreted Masinter's formal objection as an attempt by Adobe to
prevent HTML5 from taking root in order to prevent competition to Adobe Flash.

In this letter, Berners-Lee is saying that he believes that Canvas, RDFa, and
microdata are legitimately part of the HTML5 spec, and even if the current
charter does not explicitly allow for them, it should be amended to do so.

~~~
sh1mmer
Some have interpreted that way, but it's quite cynical.

I used to do a bunch of W3 standard. People I know on the inside _not_ from
Adobe have told me that this was just a procedural question.

This is probably the reason it was done on a private list, to avoid exciting
this kind of speculation, which certain people in the WG decided to spark
anyway by posting about "secret objections".

~~~
andybak
What do you think Hixie's view on Larry's actions were? He certainly sparked
the controversy with his public reaction to Larry. Was it justified? Was he
overreacting? Politicking? There's more to this story even if it's just people
politics.

------
sh1mmer
This headline is misleading in that Timbl is agreeing that the charter is out
of date. He isn't rejecting some proposal from Adobe to banish items from the
WG agenda.

~~~
invisible
This really is a horrible title for his post. He came as close to agreeing as
possible without actually triggering a full on review of the charter. In fact,
annotating the charter is probably all Masinter was going for really (he just
didn't know how to request "annotating" vs "updating").

