On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: >> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under >> development: >> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html >> (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed) >> >> Web Platform Working Group >> http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html >> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/ >> >> Service Workers Working Group >> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html >> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/ >> >> Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github >> repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be >> made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing >> list. > > I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but > these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as > sent out in > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html
>From everything I understand we're ok with the Service Workers Working Group moving forward. Annevk, Marcos (cc'd) any additional thoughts? For the Web Platform Working Group: tl;dr: We should keep reiterating our Formal Objection until the charter is changed to drop dupllication of specs that are being well maintained by WHATWG. It's a waste of everyone (including ours) time for such duplication. Something with the substance of the following - feel free to reword for terseness etc.: Formal Objection: We request dropping all REC track specifications that the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (by evidence of active implementer participation and implementation, including Mozilla in Firefox). Optional: Republish current version as a terminal NOTE, citing the WHATWG version as normative at the top of the NOTE in large text as we would for any other abandoned document for which better / more recent / more accurate versions exist elsewhere. Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track deliverables: * HTML5.2: at this point *no implementer* (people actually committing code to browsers) are paying any practical (in that it affects code) attention to HTML5.2, especially to any differences between HTML5.2 and WHATWG HTML, despite having editors from Microsoft and Google. It is unlikely that there are any patent/IP benefits to pursuing HTML5.2 (existing features already covered by HTML5 REC) at W3C. * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, no need for any W3C time spent on this. * ... any others? (Annevk, Marcos?) Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of ways. * It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a number of organizations including Mozilla actively participates in. * This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction as well as disincentivizes collaboration and demonstrates either neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG and that's unacceptable behavior (counter to W3C PWE). * Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion that HTML5.2 is providing any kind of meaningful update to HTML, when meaningful updates (i.e. things that are implemented or fixed in browsers that web developers can then depend on) are only based on WHATWG HTML at this point. * ... anything else? (again, Annevk, Marcos, explicitly soliciting your additional input here) Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
