Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Feb 2010 22:17 UTC
Internet & Networking There's a bit of ruckus going on at the moment in the world of HTML5. A number of people are claiming that Adobe has blocked the latest publication of the HTML5 standard. However, after diving into the actual mailing list threads, it becomes obvious quite quickly that it's nothing but a misunderstanding. Update: Masinter replies: "No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, 'blocked' in the W3C HTML Working Group - not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata, not Video - not by me, not by Adobe."
Thread beginning with comment 409361
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Wasn't Public Initially
by Mike Pavone on Mon 15th Feb 2010 06:03 UTC
Mike Pavone
Member since:

Adobe's formal objection was originally posted on a private list. It's available publicly now, but it wasn't when the claims you are referring to.

The main HTML 5 document isn't held up directly by this action, but apparently modifying the charter is no trivial task. If they have to go back and do that as a result of this objection it could lead to substantial delays. Further, while Canvas has been split out into a separate document it's still a part of the larger HTML5 project and arguably one of the more important ones.

There is some legitimate concern about the scope of RDFa and Microdata which is even visible in the current drafts for those standards (namely whether RDFa as it applies to HTML5 should be handled by the RDFa people and whehter Microdata should be pursued given that RDFa shares a similar purpose). However, the issues with scope for Canvas and whether splitting it out into a separate document would require charter modifications have apparently been resolved for a couple of years now. It seems odd that Adobe would bring it up now unless they're just trying to get in the way.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wasn't Public Initially
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 15th Feb 2010 07:48 in reply to "Wasn't Public Initially"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

You are mistaken about the availability of the objection. It's quite clearly detailed in the article that the objection was sent to a public mailist list February 5.

Come on people, I don't want to defend Adobe ;) . I'm already going to hell because of all the times I've been drunk, AND THIS ISN'T HELPING.

Reply Parent Score: 1