7 ms·
The real question of the whole thing is how Microsoft could be given permanent chairmanship of the whole thing, where they have only ever had one goal in the la
by famsam 16y ago
The real question of the whole thing is how Microsoft could be given permanent chairmanship of the whole thing, where they have only ever had one goal in the last ten years, kill the browser however they can. They have discovered after giving it their best try to just ignore it and hope it will go away that they have to get back into the process and kill things that way. It would be far better to have a specification that goes forward without their approval than one that they make harmless enough that they can still ignore it while having negatively impacted the value of the whole thing.
- othermaciej 16y agoThere are three co-chairs currently, who are employed by Apple, IBM and Microsoft respectively. Paul Cotton, the Chair who is employed by Microsoft, has lots of standards experience, including as a former chair of the XML Query group. He's been very helpful in dealing with W3C inner workings, but has mostly stayed out of technical debates. Notwithstanding the history of Microsoft's engagement with Web standards, I think Paul has been doing a fine job and I can't really say a word against him.
- famsam 16y agoHe has played that game for a while as these things just happen to be happening around him. He is a facilitator for Microsoft with respect to having their way with standards. If he avoids the technical debates, all the more reason he shouldn't be there. Yet somehow they object when whatwg characterizes a removal as being politically motivated.