Tim Berners-Lee rejects Adobe's procedural arguments | Hacker News Reader

Tim Berners-Lee rejects Adobe's procedural arguments

lists.w3.org

44 pointschanux24 comments

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.

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.

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...)

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.

Politically, there is nothing Adobe can do now. TBL has the final say and he has spoken.

Adobe is just doing what is best for their shareholders. Can't blame them really.

Before HTML5, they had more of a monopoly than Microsoft had on the desktops when they were sued. Now Flash has competition with all the browsers. It's a mandate that they all have to do what they've just left to Adobe to handle with Flash.

It'll be an interesting show. I for one am very excited about this because it eliminates a lot of uncertainty about the web as a platform moving forward.

Best for shareholders?

It's not like they're making money from flash player. They're making money from content creation tools (i.e. Creative Suite). At this point it may be a bit easier for them to create Flash content but adding HTML5 to that mix should be doable. They are already creating native iphone apps with Flash authoring in CS5 (see http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/)

Content creators will want to create content that is accessible to a wide audience with a good user experience. They will buy the tools that will allow them to do so efficiently. If that means HTML5 then that is where the money is and that is what shareholders will demand Adobe to support (follow the money).

Furthermore HTML5 over Flash makes a good argument for people to buy upgrades to their Content Creation Tools. So there is even more money to be made with HTML5 for Adobe.

Are you suggesting that having a monopoly on a platform isn't good for a company trying to leverage tools to target that platform?

I'm mostly suggesting that Adobe's tools may not be tied to the Flash platform as much as it may seem.

It also means all those people trained on Flash are going to have to be retrained. Flash is kind of like Adobe's stake in the web world. Flash ruled the online video and graphics world. Everything else, there's a good enough competitor. But not flash, not really. Not until there is some real competition.

Adobe can make a lot of money on this, but it will be hard work and Steve Jobs called them lazy for a reason.

Adobe make the tools for creating Flash content. Not the only tools, I know, but the most widely used and supported tools. They also control the player, meaning new features added to the player will appear in Adobe tools first.

They'll adapt their tools to output HTML5, sure, just like Illustrator outputs SVG. They lose the control that they had with the Flash platform, though.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

If I understand correctly he's updating the working groups charter so that its clear that canvas, microdata, and rdfa are in scope. This way any objections that these products were out of scope is no longer valid.

I suppose the groups that were objecting can now use this as an excuse to pull out of the working group, claiming that they don't support the new charter.

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.

Thanks TBL. I knew we could count on you.

Well, you know, Adobe is a company and they have their interests and they pay $60k a year to be a member of the w3c and have their voices heard and they did and the proper procedures were in place and now it's time to move forward with HTML5.

Next thing is we'll see if they were correct on their prediction that it'll take a decade to move on to HTML6.

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".

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.

You have the gist of it, but the organization in question is the W3C, not the WHATWG (which is a separate organization also working on HTML5).

(in caveman speak)

MP: Grrrr. Spec is too big! Burn spec with fire make it smaller!

TBL: Arrrr. Spec is too big. Break spec into pieces with club!!

W3C: Uuugghhhh!!! Spec is good!

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.

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").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com