Green Acres 4 Me

Indeed, the two new co-chairs arrive during a crucial time. The W3C stopped developing HTML with version 4.01 in 1999, focusing instead on a very different standard called XHTML 2.0 that ultimately met its official demise in July. Browser makers, meanwhile, went their own way with a group called WHATWG, short for Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group.

WHATWG’s work ultimately grew into HTML 5 as the W3C embraced HyperText Markup Language once again. It’s got a number of features to make the Web a better foundation not just for static Web pages but also for more interactive Web applications. For example, one Web storage lets Web-based applications store data on a computer, helping Web applications work even when a network connection isn’t available.

The standardization process is complicated, though, with a complex back-and-forth between the standards group and browser makers trying new features on their own.

“Why three co-Chairs?” Berners-Lee asked in the note. “Clearly, there is a lot of work to do. Sam, Paul, and Maciej bring particular skills to the job (whether it is Maciej’s experience with WebKit or Paul’s with Working Group processes).”

The World Wide Web Consortium’s HTML Working Group had been led by IBM’s Sam Ruby and Microsoft’s Chris Wilson. Wilson has stepped down and is being replaced by two others, Paul Cotton, who manages Microsoft’s Web services standards team, and Maciej Stachowiak, who manages Apple’s WebKit WebApps team, according to an e-mail announcement by W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee.

Meanwhile, Microsoft only began HTML 5 discussion in earnest earlier this month.

And Aaron Boodman, a programmer involved with Google’s Chrome browser, suggested on the HTML 5 mailing list, “I would like to propose that we get rid of the concepts of ‘versions’ altogether from HTML. In reality, nobody supports all of HTML 5…Instead of insisting that a particular version of HTML is a monolithic unit that must be implemented in its entirety, we could have each feature (or logical group of features) spun off into its own small spec.”

Apple gets higher profile in HTML standardization

Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor.

(Credit:James Martin/CNET)

The developer of Ninjawords isn’t exactly mollified by Apple’s reasoning. “Apple may slap a 17+ rating on our app and wash their hands, saying ‘you’re not required to censor your app’, but at the same time, they’re putting a great deal of pressure on us to do so. Who wants to be the only illicit dictionary on the App Store?” said Phil Crosby of Matchstick, which created the application. Crosby and Gruber noted that several other dictionaries in the App Store contain language that some may find objectionable yet are not required to carry the equivalent of an R movie rating.

Apple's Phil Schiller, seen here at Macworld in January, commented on the App Store approval process this week–a move that seems to be unprecedented.

Gruber credited Apple with perhaps waking up to the reality that at some point, the App Store approval process went off the rails. “That Schiller was willing to respond in such detail and length, on the record, is the first proof I’ve seen that Apple’s leadership is trying to make the course correction that many of us see as necessary for the long-term success of the platform. The improvement I consider most important is a significant focus on fairness, consistency, and common sense in the App Store review process,” he wrote.

Ninjawords draws on Wiktionary.com for its definitions, Schiller said, which means it offers up a few more choice words than the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary have gotten around to including. “Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on theiPhone,” Schiller told Gruber via e-mail.

Apple breaks App Store silence

(Credit:Apple)

The glossy versus antiglare debate has been ongoing since the glossy version was first introduced on notebooks. For some, it’s a matter of aesthetics or eye strain. And then there are creative professionals who maintain that color is more accurate on an antiglare display. Others say it doesn’t really matter.

Jim Dalrymple has followed Apple and the Mac industry for the last 15 years, first as part of MacCentral and then in various positions at Macworld. Jim also writes about the professional audio market, examining the best ways to record music using a Macintosh. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. He currently runs The Loop. You can follow him on Twitter @jdalrymple.

Apple lands deal to sell iPhone in China

Apple breaks App Store silence

Apple's Phil Schiller, seen here at Macworld in January, commented on the App Store approval process this week–a move that seems to be unprecedented.

Ninjawords draws on Wiktionary.com for its definitions, Schiller said, which means it offers up a few more choice words than the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary have gotten around to including. “Apple rejected the initial submission of Ninjawords for this reason, provided the Ninjawords developer with information about some of the vulgar terms, and suggested to the developer that they resubmit the application for approval once parental controls were implemented on theiPhone,” Schiller told Gruber via e-mail.

The developer of Ninjawords isn’t exactly mollified by Apple’s reasoning. “Apple may slap a 17+ rating on our app and wash their hands, saying ‘you’re not required to censor your app’, but at the same time, they’re putting a great deal of pressure on us to do so. Who wants to be the only illicit dictionary on the App Store?” said Phil Crosby of Matchstick, which created the application. Crosby and Gruber noted that several other dictionaries in the App Store contain language that some may find objectionable yet are not required to carry the equivalent of an R movie rating.

Apple’s Phil Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing and last seen playing the role of Steve Jobs at Apple events this year, e-mailed John Gruber of Daring Fireball to comment on the approval process of Ninjawords, a dictionary application that was initially rejected from the App Store because it supplied the definition of several dirty words. Schiller blamed the snafu on poor timing, saying that Apple never directly censored the application but felt it deserved a 17+ rating, which wasn’t formally available as an option until parental controls were released along with the iPhone 3.0 software in June.

But while the debate over Ninjawords will rage on, what’s perhaps most significant is that Apple has directly commented on its decision-making process regarding the approval or rejection of a specific iPhone application. As far as I can tell, Apple has never done this in the year-plus history of the App Store, with the notable exception of Baby Shaker. But even then, Apple didn’t explain the reasoning behind its decision to approve an application it eventually called “deeply offensive.”

No Comments »

But while the debate over Ninjawords will rage on, what’s perhaps most significant is that Apple has directly commented on its decision-making process regarding the approval or rejection of a specific iPhone application. As far as I can tell, Apple has never done this in the year-plus history of the App Store, with the notable exception of Baby Shaker. But even then, Apple didn’t explain the reasoning behind its decision to approve an application it eventually called “deeply offensive.”

Perhaps now that the FCC is taking a closer look at the Google Voice debacle, Apple will now start to finally give developers and iPhone users some specific input on the criteria it uses to approve or deny iPhone applications. To this point, the process has been a black box, frustrating developers time and time again.

Apple's Phil Schiller, seen here at Macworld in January, commented on the App Store approval process this week–a move that seems to be unprecedented.

Apple breaks App Store silence