On 6/18/2011 5:07 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Shelley - I wasn't suggesting speaking for you per se, just acting as
a transparent conduit (while still being happily responsible for any
repercussions).
Sure, understood.
I will NOT skulk in the background like a naughty girl not allowed in the
clubhouse.
What I've found most annoying since getting closer to this group isn't
the clubhouseness (I find myself agreeing with the WHATWG boys a lot
more than I'd ever have expected) but the antics of one particular
naughty boy in the showers.
I'm more concerned about the fact that for all the talk of procedures,
there is no real control over HTML5. It's an ugly mess that threatens to
get worse, not better.
What happens in six months when the WebGL group suddenly decides they
need something else in HTML5? Or some other group comes along and
breathlessly states how they must have this, or that, or whatever?
For all the talk of "Living HTML", all the stuff still finds its way
back to the W3C and HTML5--but via the backdoor. It is the worst of all
possible worlds.
Consider the recent change related to crossorigin and CORS. This was a
change specifically related to security, and the relaxing of security.
More caution, rather than less, should be spent with anything security
related, yet this was added with _no interaction on the part of the HTML
WG, at all_. It was extending a concept that evolved for one purpose for
another, without necessarily even being aware of why such an extension
was necessary in the first place.
In the meantime, the accessibility group has spent three years fighting
to save one attribute. One single attribute that existed in HTML4, has
no ramifications from a security standpoint, and few potential negative
consequences.
Broken. How can a person look at this and _not_ see how broken all of
this is?
I guess you should sign up again, Shelley.
Not an option.
But thank you again for your offer. And best of luck with your continued
participation with the HTML WG.
Regards,
Shelley
