Way to “fix things along”.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/att-0665/00-part

“Therefore we feel that it would be ideal if we could resolve all or even some of the scope questions before these documents are published. In particular, we feel that it would be unfortunate to publish a document just to find out days later that it was considered out of scope….
Accordingly, we would appreciate either an expeditious response to Larry’s inquiries (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360.html), or an outlook on when such a response will be made. If the request can be handled quickly, we would rather wait for the response. If not, we will find an alternate way to proceed. “

It looks like the W3C and the HTML5 Working group co-chairs were working based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html where, in part, Larry Masinter said, “So I object to the chairs’ decision that these documents are in scope. I suppose a formal objection is decided by the domain lead, or appealed to the Director, and the team contact can help with this process?”

So we’ve got the phrase “formal objection” in the mail, which the W3C parsed as “there is a Formal Objection” and which Larry states he means “I did have discussions about the process for escalating a concern if it came to that. But there couldn’t be a Formal Objection to a Decision, because no Decision had been made.” http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/02/working_group_publication_requ.html#c187184

I suppose if one puts buts ones brain into Strict Mode that could be taken as questioning how the process works, and not claiming to be starting the process?

If I type process one more time today I’m going to throw up on my keyboard.

Why it took five days for a flat denial – after a member of the working group straightup asked for one – I don’t know enough about the history of these people to even guess. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0367.html) It certainly led to confusion not just by me or you or John Gruber, but by the co-chairs and by the W3C itself.

Philippe Le Hégaret kicked this off by saying the W3C wasn’t going to approve publication of the documents in questions due to a Formal Objection, and today responds to the issue in the comments to a blog post at w3c.org http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/02/working_group_publication_requ.html

Also, on Twitter Larry Masinter has said he didn’t file a Formal Objection:
http://twitter.com/mark_a_morgan/status/9206945447
http://twitter.com/masinter/status/9224151658

At this point the only way that some secret mailing list drama could be blocking HTML5 is if the W3C just plain ignores its own processes.

They’d document JavaScript APIs in a separate spec. A JavaScript API for HTML5 just doesn’t belong in the HTML5 specification. A Silverlight API wouldn’t belong in the spec either.

“What color is the sky in your world?”

I like that. But the commonly held belief that Adobe’s success is the inverse of HTML5′s success is a total fiction. I think I’m being reasonable; here’s my thought process.

Adobe is primarily in the business of making tools. The Flash Player doesn’t increase its cash flow directly; they make money from the IDE. Most of their tools make some use of HTML, including Dreamweaver, Photoshop and InDesign, and in order for their tools to stay on the cutting edge, they’ll need to generate HTML5 markup that follows the spec. That definitely includes the canvas tag. That’s why I think it’s in Adobe’s best interest to ensure that HTML5′s spec is clear and complete.

I’d like to hear a counterexample. What color’s your sky: has Adobe done anything recently that debunks my argument?

They already do the former (Illustrator) and yes to the latter. If Adobe were thinking of HTML5 as an opportunity first and a threat to Flash second this post probably wouldn’t exist. The sad thing is that Macromedia sat on its ass for a long time w.r.t. Flash development. Only very recently (post Adobe takeover) has Flash’s development UI been improved and Flash started being optimized for hardware acceleration and power consumption. Way too late.

Oh you might find this link informative: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0010.html

“Changing the charter is in fact a big deal – it’s a lot of work, takes a long time, and could lead to all sorts of unexpected changes. The charter is not generally updated for changes of chairs, nor for changes in deliverables that are within the original charter scope.”

and

“Reopening the issue of immediate mode graphics being in scope is out of order unless someone has new information that was not available at the time of the original decision. And while anyone is free to make a Formal Objection to that old decision, such an objection would neither be timely nor likely to be effective (since this decision has already been reviewed by everyone who would be expected to review it).”

JavaScript? How does one document a JavaScript API without mentioning JavaScript?

“Adobe is heavily invested in graphics and web technologies, and will suffer as a company if the canvas tag is poorly specified. It’s in their best interest.”

What color is the sky in your world?

If a tag’s documentation is clear and complete then I think it belongs in the spec.

By “complete” I mean finished, but also devoid of any references to other, parallel technologies. There should be no mention of JavaScript, Flash, SilverLight, Webkit, et cetera.

It’s my belief that Adobe (Masinter) wants the canvas tag documentation to be clearer or to be more complete. Adobe is heavily invested in graphics and web technologies, and will suffer as a company if the canvas tag is poorly specified. It’s in their best interest.

Advocatus: It doesn’t matter at all why Gruber hates Flash. He’s begun to behave like the journalists he ridiculed only a few weeks ago, who jumped the gun writing opinion pieces on the iPad before its debut. In this case, he accused Adobe of sabotage before all the facts were in.

The ‘Old Adobe’ rep would have said something like this:

“I should probably recuse myself from this discussion due to conflict of interest, but I have an objection and here’s why (brief reasons 1, 2, 3).”

The ‘New Adobe’, that has about 60-90 days to formulate something for a device that’s totally anti-Flash that relies on HTML5 as a pivotal technology says,

“I have an objection, which you can go look up yourselves on the public mailing list. Oh, you want me to repeat it briefly? I’ll forward it in email later.”

So yeah, hello delaying tactic. Why?

Because (I think) Adobe has put all their eggs and resources in the Flash basket. They’re NOT a ‘tool maker’ anymore per se. They’re TRYING to make Flash a ‘platform’ in the way that the iPhone is a ‘platform’. And they have about 60 days before the iPad hits to prove that Flash is even relevant to the enduser experience.

The problem is that ‘Flash’ as end-users see it is a crappy browser plugin. Not a runtime, development environment or anything else. That’s all closed and under the hood as it should be.

The other problem is that software per se is NOT a ‘platform’, hardware + software is. With most of the weight put on the hardware. Microsoft is the ONLY exception to this rule, and they have an entire OS. And we’ve all seen how hard that game is played.

Adobe is not only trying to beat Apple at their own ‘platform’ game with *just* software, their entire future is riding on a *plugin*.

That’s why the ‘new Adobe’ folks are so thin-skinned about a *plugin*. And abuse the word ‘ubiquity’ so much.

-Drunken Economist
http://mindtaker.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/drunk_economist

“There is a single specification deliverable for the HTML Working Group, the HTML specification, a platform-neutral and device-independent design with the following items in scope: ”

Which precedes the section you quoted that lays out the contents of that specification.

It seems that Larry is arguing that by delivering these as separate documented specifications they are adding to the deliverables and thus the additional deliverables are out of scope. It has nothing to do with the scope of the Canvas API and its pertinence to the HTML5 spec, merely the number of published documents.

Based on the emails Larry has asked that the addition to scope either be updated in the charter (a tedious process I understand and thus the chairs wish to avoid it) or documented in the ‘Document Status’ section of the specifications such that it is understand that CURRENTLY the document is not a deliverable of the charter, but is expected to be upon next rewrite. I really have no idea why they can’t take 5 minutes to do this as it DOES seem a valid objection.

You guys are bitching about the procedural BS holding up the process, but if they agreed to follow the process, then they NEED TO FOLLOW IT, not cut corners.

It would be far more a stretch to believe an employee of a corporation on a standards board would act against their employers business interests. Employers and their money don’t always supply the prime motivation for employees behavior–but that’s the way to bet. Money is often the root cause of such procedural skull duggery, jiggery-pokery, and shenanigans.

Gruber doesn’t hate Flash because it’s from Adobe–he hates it because it’s slow, resource-hogging, poorly-implemented, even more poorly maintained, buggy, and abused more often than used well. It is Franken-code and we have our pitchforks and torches out because simply must die.