Subject: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position

From: "Steven Pemberton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:20:13 +0100

>From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: URGENT: W3C web form standards for device input and upload
>
>Thursday evening I spoke with a member of the W3C HTML Working
>Group who removed all my remaining doubt that the HTML WG has any
>serious support for open, non-proprietary web form upload standards
>for non-wintel platforms.  The HTML WG keeps including Microsoft's
>OBJECT catch-all element tag, even in "scaled down" versions of
>HTML, but refuses to support the non-proprietary device upload
>proposal.  Your help is needed to correct this situation.

I think that as chair of the HTML WG, I had better quickly put this
straight.

James Salsman sent the HTML Working Group a proposal sometime ago for device
upload. We read it, and sent back details to him of how it could be improved
(for instance for device independence). However, he declined to make
changes, claiming that it was fine as it was. We said that we couldn't
accept it flawed as it was, and offered him ways to get involved.

Since then he has been sending messages like the above, apparently thinking
that the problems in his proposal can be solved by petition.

The HTML WG has no problems with device upload, and has never refused to
support device upload; we think it is a good idea. James Salsman's proposal
is flawed, and we have commented on how it could be repaired.

The WG is currently working on revised forms, and any device upload would be
in the context of that work.

The <object> element is a part of HTML 4, which was created by a group of
representatives from many companies. It is not a platform-dependent or
vendor-dependent element.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Chair, W3C HTML WG

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:55:23 -0800 (PST)

Dear Dr. Pemberton,

Thank you for your message.  I hope this one gets through.  Some 
of my email to W3C lists (e.g., www-forms) has not appeared in 
the archives.

You state that there are comments regarding how the device upload 
proposal can be improved.  Please publish them, with my replies to 
them.  My understanding is that there are no unresolved issues.

> for instance for device independence

The device upload proposal -- http://www.bovik.org/device-upload.html
is the epitome of device independence -- it has an extensible 
"device" attribute, after all.  This line of argument is disingenuous,
and I hope it is not representative of the official position of the
W3C.  Please let me know.

> The WG is currently working on revised forms, and any device upload
> would be in the context of that work.

You refer to the extensive re-design of forms using XML, which 
will require substantial replacement of both client and server
software.  I do not wish my work to be associated with that 
effort.  First, the device upload proposal requires only changes 
in web clients, not CGI script processing software or other 
server software.  More importantly, the "XForms" work is 
currently scheduled for completion in the forth quarter.  Why 
should people on non-wintel platforms wait that long for a way 
to record audio?  As you know, I participated in the XForms work,
but I think it would be a mistake for me to resume participation.

Please accept the device upload submission from General Magic 
as a Working Draft, on Recommendation track.

Cheers,
James Salsman

---

From: "Steven Pemberton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:13:31 +0100

> of my email to W3C lists (e.g., www-forms) has not appeared in

Some W3C lists are not public, and intended for members of the group only.

> them.  My understanding is that there are no unresolved issues.

They are already published, and there is no need to repeat them here.

> "device" attribute, after all.

My suspicion, James, since you continue to repeat this, is that you don't
understand the issues. Other replies to the www-html mailing list are only
repeating the comments we gave you in the early stages of this discussion,
so I suggest you read them carefully.

> effort.

Then you are out of luck, because that is the only place where work on forms
is happening within W3C.

> Why
> to record audio?

This non-wintel issue is a red herring, and has nothing to do with it.

> As you know, I participated in the XForms work,

I concur.

> as a Working Draft, on Recommendation track.

It was submitted to us once, and we have replied. It would serve no purpose
to submit it again, even if you did represent General Magic.

Steven Pemberton
Chair W3C HTML WG

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:00:48 -0800 (PST)

> From: "Steven Pemberton" <[email-masked]>
> 

Where are they published?  They are in the private W3C members-only 
archives, in the w3c-html-wg archives around October-November 1999, 
with nearly the same discussion in the private w3c-forms list earlier.

> This non-wintel issue is a red herring, and has nothing to do with it.

The fact remains that non-wintel web users are excluded from a range 
of very useful services involving device input and upload.  If the 
HTML Working Group had incorporated device upload into specifications
when they were first submitted as an internet-draft in 1997, after 
the implementation on the WebTV Plus, then all this would be a 
non-issue.  But as things stand, the W3C is contributing to wintel 
dominance, and disenfranchising Unix and Mac users.

Delaying device upload standardization to coincide with the XForms 
overhaul of HTML forms might be attractive to the HTML Working Group 
because it increases the chance that XForms will be accepted.  But 
is that an ethical justification for delaying a technology that 
enables a wide range of educational services?  

Tying device upload to XForms will certainly delay both, and could 
make it less likely that the device upload work will be implemented.  
If the XForms work is so important, then shouldn't it be able to 
stand on its own?

Cheers,
James