[whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:35:09 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp  
<nils at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk at opera.com> schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011
> 15:14:16 +0100:
>> I personally had a number of
>> useful technical discussions on Google+. Maybe some of those will
>> take place on the WHATWG Google+ page.
>
> Excluding those without an account – a price one may or may not be
> willing to pay.

whatwg at whatwg.org excludes people unable to cope with large amounts of  
email. #whatwg excludes people unable to cope with an ongoing stream of  
text messages. forums.whatwg.org excludes people who do not want to create  
yet another account and remember yet another website. There's all kinds of  
people and they all have a stake in the platform. I'm interested in what  
they have to say.


>> Maybe some people prefer to
>> get WHATWG pointers via Google+, just like some prefer to get it via
>> Twitter today.
>
> I have no problem with that. We both know why neither one of those
> platforms allows users to consume or produce ATOM or RSS feeds, though:
> Lock-in. By using such a platform in spite of alternatives, you make it
> more valuable. I do not see this as a desirable thing.

I agree that is problematic. But I think the value of getting feedback  
outweighs that drawback.


> At Twitter, I can follow people with a feed reader. G+ does not even
> give me that choice. I would appreciate if notable discussions would at
> least pop up on the mailing list or the blog – just like you linked to
> the IRC logs. There is a pretty real risk of people missing out some.

Following everything what is going on with regards to the platform is  
impossible these days. There are too many pieces. I do my best to write  
some kind of summary and so do others, but you will miss out on certain  
thoughts and discussions, and so do we.


> When I was on G+, I saw quite some people who re-shared something
> urging their readers to comment not under the post they made, but on
> the linked page, so the discussion did not get fragmented. It was a sad
> thing to see.

Fragmentation is an inherent feature of the web. It allows for people to  
discuss an issue with their peers and come back with a better  
understanding. There's absolutely no need to be in control of that, nor is  
it possible, fortunately.


> It's almost as great as the choice we have in audio and video codecs!
> (I'm bitter, I know. Blame Apple.)

Kenny also made this comparison and I think it is faulty one. I think it  
is fine for discussion to be fragmented (it already is and always will be).


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/