James Graham wrote:
Dean Edridge wrote:
It's unfortunate that I'm forced to bring this up in public, but
since I have already expressed my concerns regarding this group
privately with: Ian Hickson, Anne van Kesteren, Lachlan Hunt, Mike
Smith, Chris Wilson and Dan Connolly, but with no success and no
change in attitude, I obviously need to mention them again here. I've
also made formal complaints with Mike Smith, Chris Wilson and Dan
Connolly regarding the openness and process of this group but those
have not been acted on. I have no option but to make my concerns
publicly known.
General concerns regarding the HTML WG and (X)HTML5
I'm disappointed to see a lot of anti-XHTML sentiment within the
group considering that this spec is supposed to be both HTML5 and
XHTML5 I would have thought that people could be a bit more open
minded than this. We are, after all, supposed to be "Leading the web
to its full potential" yet some people insist on putting limitations
on the web by restricting it to only text/html.
I don't think that the working group and specification is being run
in an objective, democratic and non-biased manner. For example:
HTML5 Editor: Ian Hickson (Google)
HTML5 Editors assistant: David Hyatt (Apple)
HTML5 Design Principals co-editor: Anne van Kesteren (Opera software)
HTML5 Design Principals co-editor: Maciej Stachowiak (Apple)
HTMLWG staff contact: Mike Smith (ex Opera software)
HTMLWG co-chair: Chris Wilson (Microsoft) (Nice guy, but he did put
his name on the first XHTML spec 8 years ago, then prevented over 6
Billion people from being able to use it.)
HTML5 (not so democratic or balanced) author guidelines: Lachlan Hunt
(Opera software) Deliberately published his guide with the W3C logo
even though that day there had been several objections to his loose
choice of formatting within the public-html mailing list.
The HTMLWG is becoming less and less democratic everyday. It has
become a dictatorship driven by three companies: Google, Apple and
Opera. These companies have there own interest at heart which may or
may not be in the best interest of the open web. Unless one happens
to be an employee (or a friend of an employee) of these companies,
one doesn't seem to have much say in the way that HTML5 and XHTML5
gets developed.
I have witnessed on many occasions people outside of these
organisations/companies have not had their ideas taken seriously or
added to the spec. I can think of Sam Ruby, Karl Dubost and myself
just to name a few people that have not only had their ideas knocked
down but have been personally mocked, ridiculed and attacked by Ian
Hickson & Co on the IRC channels just because the ideas or decisions
they made did not suit Ian and his group.
I don't see what the point is in having 1000 or more people involved
in this work if only one person is in control of what gets added to
the spec? What's the point in having people put their ideas on the
table if at the end of the day Ian comes to the table and only picks
up the ideas he likes? I don't believe that such a process as
important as this should be controlled by just one man. Many ideas
have been put forward but rejected because they don't fit into Ian's
view of what the web should be.
Ian has shown his lack of professionalism to me by publishing my
personal emails publicly on his web site and the CSS working group
member-only emails publicly. [1] How can a person like Ian be left
with such control over a specification that over 6 billion people are
expected to use?
The W3C staff members don't seem to be interested in defending the
open web given that I have made official complaints regarding Ian
Hickson and his sponsors, but yet had no active response from the
W3C. If the W3C can't stand up to this renegade group then what's the
point of having the W3C? It seems that anyone can hijack the web and
dictate to the world so long as they have enough money.
I do appreciate all the work that has been put into (X)HTML5 by Ian
and the rest of the WHATWG, I just feel that it's time for certain
people to let go and let others have a say in the way the spec should
be. After all, it's supposed to be an "open spec" for the "open web"
isn't it?
If the way things are done in this group doesn't change to a more
democratic model I'll be suggesting to the chairs that Ian Hickson be
replaced as Editor of the spec with someone more professional and
independent.
In the mean time I hereby ask that the HTML WG chairs engage the
services of another person who is not an employee of Google, Opera
software, Apple/Webkit or Mozilla to be another co Editor and watch
Ian to see if he is taking everyone's ideas/concerns in to account
and not blocking democracy with his own personal views/ideals.
Dean, I disagree with almost everything you have said.
I hope in time that you will come around to seeing that my concerns are
in fact genuine.
As far as I can tell, the current process is working surprisingly
well, input is being taken from a wide variety of sources and, given
the difficulty of the task we have undertaken, good progress is being
made.
Yes, good process is being made as long as you like the direction Ian
and the WHATWG are going in, I don't. We are being led by the WHATWG and
are being forced to have a second-rate web with training wheels on it.
The idea that input is not being taken from people outside a select
group is false;
It most certainly is not false James.
you mention Sam Ruby but his ideas about extensibility are something
many people are interested in exploring; I had several discussions
about incorporating SVG and MathML into HTML at the TPAC with Anne,
Hixie, Doug Schepers, Patrick Ion from the MathML working group, and
probably others who I forget. One way of adding these things to
text/html is via a general extensibility mechanism. The difficulty is
purely technical - how can we extend text/html without breaking
compatibility with legacy parsers, whilst maintaining an
easy-to-author syntax?
This is totally off topic James. This has nothing to do with what I have
complained about.
If you want to see this problem solved
I have never commented on this particular issue.
the answer is not to kick up a fuss about the fact that someone else
hasn't solved it, but to invest some time in finding a solution.
LOL. Just as well I have a thick skin to handle all these false
accusations from you lot eh? :) I most certainly are not kicking up a
fuss about this James. You have your wires crossed sorry, this is a
separate issue that I myself have not entered into yet.
It seems that the heart of our frustration lies with the fact that the
draft does not specify that UAs MUST support XHTML.
It most certainly is not James, absolutely not. This is just one concern
that I have raised with the last week. There has been several occasions
where I have raised my point of view and been ignored by the editors. As
I said in my complaint; I have made complaints/raised my concerns, with
the chairs and privately with Ian before I even thought of addressing
the "support both formats" issue.
However I think there are two further issues you should consider. The
first is technical - can XML 1.0 work on the web? I don't believe it
can; the fatal-exception-on-wellformedness-error behavior is likely to
be unacceptable to any website that values its uptime. On almost all
the XHTML websites I regularly visit I have seen fatal XML errors at
one point or another, and I don't see anything compelling enough in
XHTML to make that risk
worthwhile for people like Amazon or Ebay (note: I have experience
using XHTML and XHTML+MathML).
What has this got to do with what I have said? Not everyone would have
to use XHTML5. That's the (possible) beauty of (X)HTML5; people can
choose whether to use HTML5 or XHTML5.
I never said that everyone should be made to use XHTML5. Of course I
have no problem at all with people using HTML5(text/html) whether this
is with big sites like Amazon & Ebay or just small personal websites.
I think that XML 2 with a (perhaps-optional) no-fatal-errors mode will
be needed for XHTML to become a success.
I'd be happy to add my opinions to this area, but on a different thread.
The second issue is the way that you are participating in the working
group. In my mind, coming in, arguing forcefully, not seeing the
changes you want and then escalating the issue, whilst at the same
time personally insulting several members of the group calling them,
for example, "unprofessional"
Ian Hickson has most definitely been "unprofessional". If you had read
my post with an open mind you would have seen that. And I have every
right to express my concerns regarding him.
and "[a] smart a%$ kid",
I spoke out of frustration of having people from your crowd jump in and
hijack my threads. I should be able to discuss XHTML5 without people
turning them into html vs xhtml arguments.
That person was certainly being a $name_I_called_him. If the W3C staff
have a problem with that email I sent to www-archive, and the language I
used; they are of course welcome to discuss this with me, they have my
contact details.
makes your arguments seem less rational and more emotional, thereby
devaluing them. For comparison, there have been other groups and
individuals who found that the spec was not entirely to their liking
and were cynical about the prospects for change. However, in at least
one case, it happened that once they tried to be open minded
Just what are you trying to say here James? I am in fact one of the more
open minded participants in the group.
Dean Edridge
