Julian Reschke wrote:
My 2 cents: it's nice that the HTML5 guys are looking at this, but they are so far away from being able to deliver something that I really would prefer that this is documented now. So, yes, I think you're on the right track.
I just want to clear up this misconception about the status of the the HTML5 draft. As a whole, it's true that it's going to take about 15 years or so for the spec to reach the W3C recommendation status (assuming the work does move to the W3C, which is currently being worked out). However, it's important to realise what the recommendation status actually means.
For a spec to become a REC, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate). When you consider how long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to implement each feature, you'll begin to understand why the time frame seems so long.
However, the WHATWG recognises and understands the problem with this: different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>). But other sections are still being actively worked on and changed regularly, or not even written yet.
The details are still being worked out, but the plan is to indicate the maturity level on a per-section basis. Sections like the Link Types, which is relatively simple, isn't going to take long to become interoperably implemented. In fact, Mozilla is already implementing the new autodiscovery features for Firefox 3.0, and it shouldn't take long for places like Technorati, Bloglines, etc. to implement follow.
Once a section is interoperably implemented, it's quite stable and unlikely to change significantly. Any changes to such a section would most likely only be editorial in nature, particularly if the feature is already in widespread use (as autodiscovery already is today).
The point to all this is that you shouldn't place too much weight on the status of the specification as a whole. You need to consider the stability and maturity level of each section individually. Thus, while proceeding with Autodiscovery as an RFC may yield a fully complete and endorsed specification more quickly than HTML5, the end result and the time it takes for implementations to catch up is going to be the same. In fact, I believe leaving it in the hands on the WHATWG will in fact lead to a much higher quality specification because of the extensive experience that the editor has with writing them.
-- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
