On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
This looks good, appreciate your edits. > Note > that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was a reason > you didn't include it? Being in a rush to catch a flight and somehow forgot W3C is still publishing DOM4. Good catch. Also, let's make our response officially public (cc www-archive) beyond unofficially here on dev-platform. Thanks, Tantek > > -David > > > We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications that > the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (as shown by active > implementer participation and implementation, including by Mozilla > in Firefox). > > We would optionally like to see W3C republish the current versions > 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, or more accurate versions > exist elsewhere. > > Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track > deliverables: > > * HTML5.2: at this point we are not aware of *any implementer* > (people actually committing code to browsers) 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 > (whose features are already covered by HTML5 REC) at W3C. > > * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, and > there is no need for any W3C time spent on this. > > * DOM 4 / DOM 4.1: likewise, the WHATWG maintains the DOM > specification, and there is no need for W3C to duplicate that > work. > > 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 participate in. > > * This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction, > discourages collaboration, and demonstrates either > neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of > chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG, which is > unacceptable behavior (and 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. > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
