Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Friday 2015-09-11 00:46 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > The HTML WG has historically has contained so much noise that next to > all productive contributors has left the group, leading to the being > unable to create almost any useful contributions to HTML5. This has > been such a big problem that the WGs future existence has been called > into question. > > The WebApps WG is working very well and produce a large number of > highly successful and widely adopted specifications that has been very > good for the web. > > The proposal here is to merge these two groups. I see no reason to > believe that the noise that exists in the HTML WG would not have the > same effect in this new WG. > > I.e. the WebApps WG might become as unproductive as the HTML WG has been. > > That would be terrible for the web. I think the risk here is lower than you think because neither the process, nor the chairs, nor the bulk of the members (the public invited experts) of the HTML WG are being merged. And I think others are aware of the risks, and willing to stop bad actors. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Friday 2015-09-11 09:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway. > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > > I'm still considering between two different endings: > > > > ... > > Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG. I used: # The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is # having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working # group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than nearly ignoring # the existence of the WHATWG). However, many of the other issues issues # raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly # considered. > > = > > > > One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media > > standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering > > many lower-level media technologies. ... > > Was this included? Since you mentioned endings before you got to this. > This is also a problem of sorts with other work the W3C is doing, > where they charter work on high-level APIs without having sorted or > planning to sort out the protocol, e.g., the Presentation API. Yes. Those were the comments on the timed media charter, though. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On 09/11/2015 04:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote: On Tuesday 2015-09-08 17:33 -0700, Tantek Γelik wrote: Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these proposed charters. If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla's response to these charters. Here are the comments I have so far (Web Platform charter first, then timed media). The deadline for comments is in about 2 hours. I'll submit these tentatively, but can revise if I get feedback quickly. (Sorry for not gathering them sooner.) -David = We are very concerned that the merger of HTML work into the functional WebApps group might harm the ability of the work happening in WebApps to continue to make progress as well as it currently does. While a number of people within Mozilla think we should formally object to this merger because of the risk to work within WebApps, I am not making this a formal objection. However, I think the proper functioning of this group needs to be carefully monitored, and the consortium needs to be prepared to make changes quickly if problems occur. And I think it would be helpful if the HTML and WebApps mailing lists are *not* merged. This sounds good to me. After chatting with MikeSmith and ArtB I'm not so worried about the merge anymore. (Apparently merge is a bit too strong word here even, it is more like taking the specification to the WebApps WG, but trying to not take the rest of the baggage from HTML WG.) -Olli A charter that is working on many documents that are primarily developed at the WHATWG should explicitly mention the WHATWG. It should explain how the relationship works, including satisfactorily explaining how W3C's work on specifications that are rapidly evolving at the WHATWG will not harm interoperability (presuming that the W3C work isn't just completely ignored). In particular, this concerns the following items of chartered work: * Quota Management API * Web Storage (2nd Edition) * DOM4 * HTML * HTML Canvas 2D Context * Web Sockets API * XHR Level 1 * Fetching resources * Streams API * URL * Web Workers and the following items in the specification maintenance section: * CORS * DOM specifications * HTML 5.0 * Progress Events * Server-sent Events * Web Storage * Web Messaging One possible approach to this problem would be to duplicate the technical work happening elsewhere on fewer or none of these specifications. However, given that I don't expect that to happen, the charter still needs to explain the relationship between the technical work happening at the WHATWG and the technical work (if any) happening at the W3C. The group should not be chartered to modularize the entire HTML specification. While specific documents that have value in being separated, active editorship, and implementation interest are worth separating, chartering a group to do full modularization of the HTML specification feels both like busywork and like chartering work that is too speculative and not properly incubated. It also seems like it will be harmful to interoperability since it proposes to modularize a specification whose primary source is maintained elsewhere, at the WHATWG. The charter should not include work on HTML Imports. We don't plan to implement it for the reasons described in https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/ and believe that it will no longer be needed when JavaScript modules are available. The inclusion of "Robust Anchoring API" in the charter is suspicious given that we haven't heard of it before. It should probably be in an incubation process before being a chartered work item. We also don't think the working group should be chartered to work on any items related to "Widgets"; this technology is no longer used. I'm still considering between two different endings: OPTION 1: Note that while this response is not a formal objection, many of these issues are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly considered. OPTION 2: The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than ignoring the existence of the WHATWG). However, many of the other issues issues raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly considered. = One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering many lower-level media technologies. The W3C's Patent Policy only helps with technology that the W3C develops, and not technology that it references. Given that, this group's charter should explicitly prefer referencing technology that can be implemented and used without paying royalties and withou
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: >> On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here, >> > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we >> > should do. >> > >> >> FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea. (Even if we're >> the only Member raising a formal objection, >> > > I understand why it's not great, however, could you follow-up with specific > reasons why it's "terrible"? The HTML WG has historically has contained so much noise that next to all productive contributors has left the group, leading to the being unable to create almost any useful contributions to HTML5. This has been such a big problem that the WGs future existence has been called into question. The WebApps WG is working very well and produce a large number of highly successful and widely adopted specifications that has been very good for the web. The proposal here is to merge these two groups. I see no reason to believe that the noise that exists in the HTML WG would not have the same effect in this new WG. I.e. the WebApps WG might become as unproductive as the HTML WG has been. That would be terrible for the web. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway. On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > I'm still considering between two different endings: > > ... Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG. > = > > One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media > standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering > many lower-level media technologies. ... Was this included? Since you mentioned endings before you got to this. This is also a problem of sorts with other work the W3C is doing, where they charter work on high-level APIs without having sorted or planning to sort out the protocol, e.g., the Presentation API. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 17:33 -0700, Tantek Γelik wrote: > Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these > proposed charters. > > If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed > Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the > opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla's response to these > charters. Here are the comments I have so far (Web Platform charter first, then timed media). The deadline for comments is in about 2 hours. I'll submit these tentatively, but can revise if I get feedback quickly. (Sorry for not gathering them sooner.) -David = We are very concerned that the merger of HTML work into the functional WebApps group might harm the ability of the work happening in WebApps to continue to make progress as well as it currently does. While a number of people within Mozilla think we should formally object to this merger because of the risk to work within WebApps, I am not making this a formal objection. However, I think the proper functioning of this group needs to be carefully monitored, and the consortium needs to be prepared to make changes quickly if problems occur. And I think it would be helpful if the HTML and WebApps mailing lists are *not* merged. A charter that is working on many documents that are primarily developed at the WHATWG should explicitly mention the WHATWG. It should explain how the relationship works, including satisfactorily explaining how W3C's work on specifications that are rapidly evolving at the WHATWG will not harm interoperability (presuming that the W3C work isn't just completely ignored). In particular, this concerns the following items of chartered work: * Quota Management API * Web Storage (2nd Edition) * DOM4 * HTML * HTML Canvas 2D Context * Web Sockets API * XHR Level 1 * Fetching resources * Streams API * URL * Web Workers and the following items in the specification maintenance section: * CORS * DOM specifications * HTML 5.0 * Progress Events * Server-sent Events * Web Storage * Web Messaging One possible approach to this problem would be to duplicate the technical work happening elsewhere on fewer or none of these specifications. However, given that I don't expect that to happen, the charter still needs to explain the relationship between the technical work happening at the WHATWG and the technical work (if any) happening at the W3C. The group should not be chartered to modularize the entire HTML specification. While specific documents that have value in being separated, active editorship, and implementation interest are worth separating, chartering a group to do full modularization of the HTML specification feels both like busywork and like chartering work that is too speculative and not properly incubated. It also seems like it will be harmful to interoperability since it proposes to modularize a specification whose primary source is maintained elsewhere, at the WHATWG. The charter should not include work on HTML Imports. We don't plan to implement it for the reasons described in https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/ and believe that it will no longer be needed when JavaScript modules are available. The inclusion of "Robust Anchoring API" in the charter is suspicious given that we haven't heard of it before. It should probably be in an incubation process before being a chartered work item. We also don't think the working group should be chartered to work on any items related to "Widgets"; this technology is no longer used. I'm still considering between two different endings: OPTION 1: Note that while this response is not a formal objection, many of these issues are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly considered. OPTION 2: The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than ignoring the existence of the WHATWG). However, many of the other issues issues raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly considered. = One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering many lower-level media technologies. The W3C's Patent Policy only helps with technology that the W3C develops, and not technology that it references. Given that, this group's charter should explicitly prefer referencing technology that can be implemented and used without paying royalties and without negotiating contracts for things for which licenses are not available to all. Likewise, the charter should list as a success criterion that the technology produced by the working group can be implemented and used without paying royalties and without negotiating contracts for things for which licenses are not available to all. Having the media gr
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here, > > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we > > should do. > > > > FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea. (Even if we're > the only Member raising a formal objection, > I understand why it's not great, however, could you follow-up with specific reasons why it's "terrible"? I disagree with the characterization as "terrible", and think a formal objection based on vague fears at this point would be chicken-littling. OTOH, I think there are plenty of specific reasons why the past problems from HTMLWG are unlikely to manifest in the Web Platform WG, and I outlined those in my previous response in this thread. If you think my analyses in the reasons given are incorrect, I'm happy to be corrected. However I *do* think we should comment something like: Problems experienced in the HTMLWG may hamper the productivity of the new WG, and we suggest the chairs pay attention to, and swiftly respond to any similar misbehaviors they see in the new WG. Having such a comment on the record itself will help provide impetus to the chairs to respond swiftly if necessary. > I suspect Mike(TM) Smith would be happy to amplify the message internally.) I'm fairly certain Mike(tm) Smith would agree with the reasons I gave for why Web Platform WG is unlikely to have the same problems, based on private feedback I've received. I'm sure Mike can speak for himself if he strongly (dis)agrees one way or the other. OTOH, maybe we should just move the remaining useful specs in WebApps > to WHATWG; that'd solve the issue once and for all. > >From what I can tell, the way the Web Apps group operates, editors of existing specs have quite a bit of leeway to work in whatever fora they find the most productive. If there's specific downsides you've experienced with Web Apps WG, that's probably worth raising as comments on the charter, in the hopes that they get addressed, or at least as good heads-up signaling before deciding to take any particular spec you're working on elsewhere. Thanks, Tantek ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here, > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we > should do. > FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea. (Even if we're the only Member raising a formal objection, I suspect Mike(TM) Smith would be happy to amplify the message internally.) OTOH, maybe we should just move the remaining useful specs in WebApps to WHATWG; that'd solve the issue once and for all. HTH Ms2ger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV8dZYAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n20z0H/0Wt4sj+zvpbS/GAPdY/S+wM sF666a9pTZ9N6bdMu9o+vcVM9s1GvP3mra1DwZHe9kfCAklfrjIWrgZ0gjMmvB6e q6reK1l4cbVGyoqCm9b32IqokHCe7wdT7Mm7m8HoSg3SdNCrWyHxfYDIshkO15aw 1xTHwamLDXmlDt94KU36EUdJAmu0j0pN8mvxiVG4FELWHAToGnlJ9l2ionoviqGl /NoQeEASW0TXt1C7Prq7XArLm7mX669z/FPrMhFgHpwyGoxP11BQy0zpCcZzSdlH dsh9yNyS4iabtHjbZVAbCbUxiNGC0ZhDoOmI3l1aYLO0uWPy4iyJRecW8iJonBU= =DO5p -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here, then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we should do. / Jonas On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen >> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: >> >> > >> >> > Web Platform Working Group: >> >> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html >> >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html >> > >> > >> > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes >> > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. >> >> I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters >> if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs. > > My one other thought here is that even if we formally object to the > merging of the groups, I don't think we're likely to be able to win > that argument at this stage. Right now they've found chairs for the > combined group, and I'm not aware of anyone else objecting to it. > > Part of the motivation for merging the groups was that nobody seemed > to have any high-priority work to go in the HTML working group. > There are a bunch of things people want to happen with existing > HTML, but nobody seemed ready to step up to do any of it. This > means that there didn't seem to be a good motivation for chartering > a new HTML working group on its own. This also means that even if > we objected to the merger, there wouldn't be a good alternative to > the merger. > > I think it's worth expressing concern about the possibility that > this will mess up the existing WebApps community. And if bad things > happen, we should raise them quickly and at a high level. > > -David > > -- > π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π > π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π > 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
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > >> > > >> > Web Platform Working Group: > >> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > > > > > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes > > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. > > I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters > if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs. My one other thought here is that even if we formally object to the merging of the groups, I don't think we're likely to be able to win that argument at this stage. Right now they've found chairs for the combined group, and I'm not aware of anyone else objecting to it. Part of the motivation for merging the groups was that nobody seemed to have any high-priority work to go in the HTML working group. There are a bunch of things people want to happen with existing HTML, but nobody seemed ready to step up to do any of it. This means that there didn't seem to be a good motivation for chartering a new HTML working group on its own. This also means that even if we objected to the merger, there wouldn't be a good alternative to the merger. I think it's worth expressing concern about the possibility that this will mess up the existing WebApps community. And if bad things happen, we should raise them quickly and at a high level. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Wednesday 2015-09-09 08:49 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Let me put it this way, how would you feel about integrating the HTML > WG into the W3C Style WG? If the HTML part of the WG were using asynchronous decision making on a separate mailing list, I don't think it would be a big deal. (It would be harder to integrate it into the synchronous decision making model that's currently used in the CSS WG, though.) > After all, one of the big problems with HTML > lately has been adding HTML features that can't be styled by authors. I don't think integrating the working groups would actually cause anyone to work on that problem. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:16 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen >> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: >> >> > >> >> > Web Platform Working Group: >> >> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html >> >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html >> > >> > >> > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes >> > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. >> >> I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters >> if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs. >> >> I agree that licenses are important. But I think having a working WG >> is even more important. > > So part of the reason it's hard to justify having a separate HTML WG > right now is that there's really not very much in HTML that there's > active interest in working on. If we want to argue for having a > separate HTML WG, I think we need a proposal (with consensus from > other implementors) on things that working group should work on that > are priorities for us to implement. And I really don't think that > set of things exists. I guess I don't have an opinion about what to do with the HTML WG. But I don't think that lack of interest in a HTML WG is a reason to change the WebApps WG. Let me put it this way, how would you feel about integrating the HTML WG into the W3C Style WG? After all, one of the big problems with HTML lately has been adding HTML features that can't be styled by authors. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > >> > > >> > Web Platform Working Group: > >> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > > > > > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes > > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. > > I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters > if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs. > > I agree that licenses are important. But I think having a working WG > is even more important. So part of the reason it's hard to justify having a separate HTML WG right now is that there's really not very much in HTML that there's active interest in working on. If we want to argue for having a separate HTML WG, I think we need a proposal (with consensus from other implementors) on things that working group should work on that are priorities for us to implement. And I really don't think that set of things exists. I think much of the disfunction of the HTML WG isn't going to get imported into the Web Platform WG since there won't be an import of the 200+ "invited experts" who were allowed to invite themselves into the HTML WG at its re-formation. What would you think about a proposal to keep the separate mailing lists that currently exist, but still have a single WG? -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Tantek Γelik wrote: > From everything I've seen, I don't expect much work around HTML beyond > taking/merging bugfixes. I'm hoping with the new license that if W3C makes > its own bugfixes that we find a way of propagating those bugfixes to WHATWG > HTML as well. FWIW, https://github.com/whatwg/html is under active development. It took a while to switch from subversion to git, but we're going through the backlog now and will also be adding new features. HTML being done seems as a bogus assertion now as it was in January 2000 when XHTML 1.0 came out. Also, I don't think the new license helps much since it's not compatible. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Γelik wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: >> > >> > Web Platform Working Group: >> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs. I agree that licenses are important. But I think having a working WG is even more important. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these proposed charters. If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla's response to these charters. Details below: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > > > > Web Platform Working Group: > > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date. One point that I feel has been missed. Both these new charters make use of the new W3C Software & Document license *for all specifications* they produce, which is a more liberal license than the previous/current Web Apps and HTML WGs. This is a good thing and a pretty big step towards our goal of getting more CC0 / liberal licensing in W3C work that is produced, so work can be independently iterated on, and merged back in etc. Henri wrote: This charter doesn't mention the WHATWG by name There is one reference with perhaps a typo: " DOM Parsing and Serialization A specification describing how to parse markup into a DOM, and serialize for export, an HTML or XML fragment or document. This was initially developed in the WHAT-WG. " > and merely says "The > Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications from > Community Groups, encourage open participation from Community Group > members, and keep coordination with relevant Community Groups, all > within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources." > I'd like to know (preferably in the form of charter text) what the > planned relationship with the WHATWG is supposed to be. Specifically, > I don't expect this W3C group to be able to do a good job maintaining > the features that are covered by actively maintained WHATWG specs > except by having a fast, low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from > the WHATWG. I too would like to see more explicit mention of WHATWG in this charter. Henri, could you propose suggested text for the charter that we can contribute that mentions WHATWG explicitly? It sounds like you have specific thoughts in mind for this and I'd like to capture that in the charter. Having the W3C modularize (what year is this? 1999 all > over again?) a WHATWG-originating spec with editorship "Up for taking" > looks like the opposite of what's needed to have a fast, > low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from the WHATWG. In general, modularizing the HTML spec for the sake of modularization > seems useless busy-work. I think we should object to modularization > for the sake of modularization. Given Robin's departure I don't expect the modularization to move forward until/unless another W3C editor shows up to attempt it - which I frankly don't see happening anytime soon. I think your suggestion is reasonable. Henri, could you propose specific text to change/drop regarding the existing mentions of "modularization" in the charter? > If there a bits that have an editor > lined up and the browser vendors want to do non-maintenance > development in the relevant area, then it might make sense to split > out something on a case-by-case basis. > I think this is a good way to focus such work and we should put that in our suggested changes to the charter. Furthermore, merging HTML into WebApps seems low-risk only if there > isn't much work to do around HTML. From everything I've seen, I don't expect much work around HTML beyond taking/merging bugfixes. I'm hoping with the new license that if W3C makes its own bugfixes that we find a way of propagating those bugfixes to WHATWG HTML as well. > Activity around HTML seems to > attract disruptions that would be unfortunate compared to WebApps > going on operating without those disruptions. Therefore, it seems > unwise to generate activity (such as pushing text around in order to > modularize) around HTML needlessly if WebApps is to take over HTML. > In general agreed. I also think there is important context to consider here which is the set of chairs of the new WG. IMO one of the problems with the disruptions that the HTMLWG attracted was that the chairs did not deal with those disruptions swiftly. Based on the proposed chairs for the new WG, I expect much more swift handling of any disruptors. In addition, the problem of disruptors is much better known, both in the HTML / Web Apps areas, and all the way up to the AB, and you can bet that many eyes will be watching for such behavior. Note also that since the past HTMLWGs disruptions, the W3C has adopted more anti-trolling type policies like their PWE (Positive Work Environment) policy. I
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On 08/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote: The W3C is proposing revised charters for: Web Platform Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html ... The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps Groups***. This seems like a terrible idea to me. The WebApps WG is very functional and has had both a good discussion culture and a good track record of creating functionality which has been adopted by browsers. The HTML WG has been extremely dysfunctional. Both with a mailing list which has attracted lots of noise and little useful discussion, and has not managed to produce a lot of work which has affected what browsers implement (most of the "HTML5" stuff browsers implemented was based off of Hixie's work in WHATWG). Merging the two seems like a a very bad idea. It seems very likely that it will disrupt the work happening in WebApps right now. I'm very much for trying to find better ways for the work currently happening in the HTML WG. But lets do that without changing the WebApps WG for now. I would personally prefer to put forward a formal objection to having a merged group at this time. / Jonas Fully agree with this all. -Olli ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > > Web Platform Working Group: > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html This charter doesn't mention the WHATWG by name and merely says "The Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications from Community Groups, encourage open participation from Community Group members, and keep coordination with relevant Community Groups, all within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources." I'd like to know (preferably in the form of charter text) what the planned relationship with the WHATWG is supposed to be. Specifically, I don't expect this W3C group to be able to do a good job maintaining the features that are covered by actively maintained WHATWG specs except by having a fast, low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from the WHATWG. Having the W3C modularize (what year is this? 1999 all over again?) a WHATWG-originating spec with editorship "Up for taking" looks like the opposite of what's needed to have a fast, low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from the WHATWG. In general, modularizing the HTML spec for the sake of modularization seems useless busy-work. I think we should object to modularization for the sake of modularization. If there a bits that have an editor lined up and the browser vendors want to do non-maintenance development in the relevant area, then it might make sense to split out something on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, merging HTML into WebApps seems low-risk only if there isn't much work to do around HTML. Activity around HTML seems to attract disruptions that would be unfortunate compared to WebApps going on operating without those disruptions. Therefore, it seems unwise to generate activity (such as pushing text around in order to modularize) around HTML needlessly if WebApps is to take over HTML. If an answer to the above is not already documented in public in a way that allows the W3C to be held to their word, I think we should ask about the above in our charter review comments. This charter includes the maintenance responsibility for a number of specs related to Widgets. Is this just a formality that pre-existing specs have to belong to *some* WG or is the group actually expected to spend time on maintaining Widgets? Does any vendor that can reasonably be expected to contribute staff time to the WG actually ship W3C Widgets or want to shift from whatever packaged Web app solution they do ship to W3C Widgets? It seems like a bad idea to put the group's time into Widgets if isn't the future we intend to pursue and, AFAICT, it isn't. > Timed Media Working Group > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps > Groups***. > > The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening > in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group. What's the rationale for this split? I realize that the Media TF of the HTML WG has been operating rather separately from the rest of the HTML WG, but if the PP is the main value proposition of the W3C, doesn't dividing work into smaller WGs undermine that value proposition? On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 09/08/15 19:59, L. David Baron wrote: >> The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening >> in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group. > > Do we see a risk here that this group will become captured by the > promoters of DRM, more than was possible when it was done in the HTML WG? I think moving EME into a group of its own would carry a major risk of the group finding other DRM things to work on in order to perpetuate its own existence. That's why I've cautioned against kicking EME out of the HTML WG. Since the proposed WG is not a DRM WG but the media WG with substantial non-DRM work to do, I'm somewhat less worried about this proposed WG than I would be about an EME-only WG. As noted above, the media TF has already been operating relatively separately. In that sense, this split doesn't involve much of a change in terms of who subscribes to which mailing list and who follows which meeting minutes. However, I don't see any benefit from having a Timed Media Working Group compared to having a Timed Media Task Force of the Web Platform Working Group and I can see potential for the separate working group to have a downside. The proposed Web Platform Working Group covers so many things that it's obvious that no single participant is going to participate in the development of all the deliverables. In that context, I think it's weird to split MSE, EME and the / parts of HTML5 maintenance into a separate WG. I think it would be reasonable for us to record a comment along the lines of the above paragraph and have Media as a TF of Platfor
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
Hi, DBaron, I would like to support the creation of Timed Media Working Group. Because Media Capture is one of other deliverables, I would like to put the work[1] to this working group. Thanks. [1]: http://chiahungtai.github.io/mediacapture-worker/ BR, CTai 2015-08-10 2:59 GMT+08:00 L. David Baron : > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > > Web Platform Working Group: > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > Timed Media Working Group > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html > > The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps > Groups***. > > The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening > in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group. > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through > Thursday, September 10. > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > say as part of this charter review. > > -David > > -- > π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π > π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π > 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 > > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > I guess I have mixed feelings about that. It's advantageous to have > WHATWG specifications published under the W3C patent policy by this > working group, though that doesn't require technical work happening > in W3C. For most specifications all we got was significant developer confusion and no coverage. Why would this group be different? > It's also good to have Microsoft's participation, and that > does require technical work. In my experience I get about the same amount of feedback from Microsoft. Not much, but not nothing either. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:51 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its >> current form. > > What's the rationale for opposing it? We've stated that we don't want to implement it: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/ -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > > Web Platform Working Group: > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html ... > > The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps > Groups***. This seems like a terrible idea to me. The WebApps WG is very functional and has had both a good discussion culture and a good track record of creating functionality which has been adopted by browsers. The HTML WG has been extremely dysfunctional. Both with a mailing list which has attracted lots of noise and little useful discussion, and has not managed to produce a lot of work which has affected what browsers implement (most of the "HTML5" stuff browsers implemented was based off of Hixie's work in WHATWG). Merging the two seems like a a very bad idea. It seems very likely that it will disrupt the work happening in WebApps right now. I'm very much for trying to find better ways for the work currently happening in the HTML WG. But lets do that without changing the WebApps WG for now. I would personally prefer to put forward a formal objection to having a merged group at this time. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its > current form. What's the rationale for opposing it? -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > Web Platform Working Group: > > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > > > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > > say as part of this charter review. > > Jeff Jaffe told me at one point that Mozilla is not asking the W3C to > not duplicate work. Whenever that comes up my response is usually that > it does not matter either way, but I suppose we could give it a go. I guess I have mixed feelings about that. It's advantageous to have WHATWG specifications published under the W3C patent policy by this working group, though that doesn't require technical work happening in W3C. It's also good to have Microsoft's participation, and that does require technical work. On the other hand, the WHATWG process is more light-weight, although the W3C has been improving. The WHATWG is also in many ways more open to community input because Web developers don't have to go through the hoops of becoming an invited expert and proving that it's not reasonable for them to pay W3C membership fees. But it's good to have the W3C's patent policy, and participation from companies who aren't comfortable in a group that doesn't have such a patent policy. So I guess I don't feel that this is an obvious thing to ask for. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > Web Platform Working Group: > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > say as part of this charter review. Jeff Jaffe told me at one point that Mozilla is not asking the W3C to not duplicate work. Whenever that comes up my response is usually that it does not matter either way, but I suppose we could give it a go. >From this charter, it seems that these items already have a home elsewhere: * Quota Management API * Web Storage (2nd Edition) * DOM4 [sic] * HTML * HTML Canvas 2D Context * Web Sockets API * XHR Level 1 * Fetching resources * Streams API * URL * Web Workers We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its current form. Robust Anchoring API looks suspect. This charter is the first time I hear of it and there's no draft available. >From the maintenance section these are duplicating effort: * CORS * DOM specifications * HTML 5.0 [sic] * Progress Events * Server-sent Events * Web Storage * Web Messaging We should probably also voice opposition to spending any kind of resources on "Widgets". That technology is no longer used. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
On 09/08/15 19:59, L. David Baron wrote: > The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening > in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group. Do we see a risk here that this group will become captured by the promoters of DRM, more than was possible when it was done in the HTML WG? Gerv ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups
The W3C is proposing revised charters for: Web Platform Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html Timed Media Working Group http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps Groups***. The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group. Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Thursday, September 10. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say as part of this charter review. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π 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) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform