Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Sam Ruby On 09-07-30 21.27:
Ben Adida wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating
under a CTR process.
I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
was initially brought up:
"For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
I mispoke.
When? I think you were just as clear in May that we work under CTR, as
you are clear today that we are not.
In May I introduced the concept of CTR to the W3C, and tried to use it
exclusively to describe the way that WHATWG (not the HTML WG as a whole)
was operating. I initially did that in a clumsy way (which Ben has
pointed out), but within a few days I attempted to straighten it out. See:
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata#c1242233866
I apologize for the confusion.
I doubt that I am alone in perceiving the branch/fork "lottery" as a
consequence of the CTR process.
For more historical context, I refer you to:
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/01/16/WHATWG-FAQ#workings
In a nutshell, the WHATWG existed prior to the HTML WG. On one hand,
should the HTML WG fold or otherwise fail to execute on its mission, the
WHATWG would in all likelihood continue its efforts. On the other hand,
it is but one potential source of proposals that the HTML WG can
consider. I am totally committed to that proposition.
That being said, I reject any notion that any failure of people outside
of the WHATWG to produce a coherent proposal is somehow a failure of the
WHATWG in general or Ian in particular. In particular, if Mike's draft
and Manu's draft are not yet ready, it is not somehow because they are
either more (or less) equal that Ian's, and certainly is not a reason to
block forward progress of Ian's draft.
I any member of the working group believe that now is the time to
"switch branches", then please propose exactly that.
As for the heartbeat requirement, in line with the perception you have
created that we work under CTR (and may be you will once again confirm
that we are?), now that the forks you have asked for finally have
appeared (and Mike's wasn't in my view recognized as a branch/fork in
this sense until recently - or else it could have been published as such
_long_ ago), it does not make sense to give priority to heartbeat.
Instead, it would make sense to finally take the consequence of the
branch/fork call. (Heck, you have so many times spoken in the tone of
"produce a draft or take the consequences = Ian's text".)
Fork is clearly a loaded term. Manu has made it clear he did not want
his work to be perceived as a fork. Mike's work doesn't have a common
ancestor with any point in time with Ian's draft, so it too is not a
traditional fork.
An incomplete/out of date history of important HTML 5 decisions appear
at the bottom of this page: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
That list is incomplete (and in fact, only includes decisions that
predate my involvement as a co-chair), but is sufficient for this
discussion. In particular, I will draw your attention to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0909.html
"we welcome Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt as editors (while remaining open
to the possibility of other editors in the future)."
I have, and do, encourage people to work with these editors. I have,
and do, encourage people who have found that approach to be a dead end
to not give up and actually produce concrete spec text. In the long
run, it is my hope that what the W3C will publish will constitute
leadership that people will willingly follow.
In at least two cases (declaring what Google, Yahoo!, CC and others are
doing with RDFa as non-conforming, and declaring what JAWS and other
tools support with the summary attribute as obsolete) I see areas where
I believe that intelligent people can reasonably disagree. I will
further note that in both cases, there is no disagreement over what the
browser (and in particular, parser) behavior is or should be, what is in
dispute is author conformance requirements.
But I digress. I have every respect for Mike and Manu. Both have
produced concrete proposals. However, neither proposal has been
submitted for consideration by the working group. I do not see that as
an optional step that can be sidestepped.
Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change to
summary) be explicitly marked.
However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
these be done.
Instead, individuals use rhetoric like "lottery". That I have little
tolerance for.
- Sam Ruby
