Dean Edridge wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Dean Edridge wrote:
So the people in the HTML WG are the only ones contributing to HTML5
then?
Not necessarily.
But if the W3C HTML WG can't decide about what's in an W3C spec and
what's not, why do we have it in the first place?
HTML5 is a joint project between the W3C and the WHATWG, so it's not
quite as simple as that. You can't say: now, you guys at the W3C, you
can edit the top half of the spec and the WHATWG folk, they can edit the
bottom half and we'll split everything 50/50. I think you're being
Nobody suggested that.
idealistic and puristic. Have you got some better ideas on how we could
do this? I mean, how do you expect it to be developed Julian? It's a
different case than other specs developed at the W3C because it's a
joint-venture.
Yes it is, but we still have a charter which essentially says we're
following a W3C decision policy
(<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#decisions>). If we
don't, we should re-charter.
The WHATWG can't decide what's in a WHATWG or W3C spec either,
ideas/features get added (or don't get added) to the spec based on
what's best for HTML5 and the Open Web platform. Ian has said many times
That's the theory, I know.
that there's things in the spec that he himself doesn't like but he has
had to put them in as there were good sound arguments for them, which
proves that he's not just throwing in his favourite ideas and having
things his way. Someone has to actually log in and physically edit the
spec, and it happens to be Ian. This is all done in public with a
commits-tracker web page plus several mailing lists listing the
changes/edits:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker
Yes. I know all of that, and I think you know I know.
I follow these lists and read every change, I have not yet seen any
changes that have given me reason for concern. If I did, I'd just email
public-html and discuss it there.
Funny enough, that's what people do when they don't like things in the
spec. Actually, a mail from Roy triggered this discussion, didn't it?
Plus, I'm sure you are aware of the two IRC channels where people
discuss the HTML5, I've seen you on at least one of them:
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/html-wg
irc://irc.freenode.net/whatwg
Everything is done out in the open, there's no secret deals done behind
closed doors. Ian wont even discuss things with people privately as he
insists on having a public account of everything (ie. cc www-archive),
he's made this quite clear to me in the past.
As far as I can tell, this is not accurate. There is feedback he said he
got (and I believe him) that he doesn't share with us because he was
told not to. It's hard to argue about feedback we can't see.
If the only desire is to slap a W3C label on something that is
somebody else's activity, we should be clear about it.
It is most certainly not "somebody else's activity" and that most
certainly is *not* the desire. Just have a look at how the HTML WG has
coordinated with the MathML WG and the SVG WG, input came from those
groups through the HTML WG into the spec. There has been considerable
input in to the spec from the HTML WG, it is not just a WHATWG project.
There is absolutely no justification for saying that it is "someone
else's activity" Julian. Just because Ian happens to be one of the nine
core members for the WHATWG, doesn't mean he favours feedback received
through the WHATWG mailing list. Ian takes in feedback from both the
groups, from all sorts of people including various mailing lists and
blogs and edits the spec based the merits of that feedback, not by who
has sent it. So your suggestion that the spec is a WHATWG spec waiting
to have a W3C badge thrown on the front of it is unfounded.
Ian essentially acts *both* as editor and decision-maker, which is, as
far as I can tell, a very uncommon setup.
It was you that asked/demanded that we have a special doctype for XSLT
generated HTML5. There were *lots of objections* to that, myself and
I was one of several people asking for it.
many other people strongly lobbied on public-html for HTML5 not to have
a special case doctype for XSLT generated software as having just the
one doctype was a strong (unwritten) design principal. Now, let me
think, what was the outcome of that?... That's right, based on your
sound arguments Ian did see that it was needed and added a special
doctype to the spec even though there were lots of objections. Now IMO,
And, despite feedback to the contrary, he used a totally misleading name
for it.
Furthermore, a related issue (how to extend the language in the future
when new elements can be void) is staying unresolved.
if we had had a vote on that, I don't think the HTML WG would have gone
for a XSLT-compat doctype, so you're idea of "consensus will save us"
would have failed you there. As it happens that incident proved that Ian
does add features to the spec if there are strong arguments for them (as
there was) even though he sometimes doesn't like them himself and they
are unpopular.
...but, let's try to say it diplomatic, he couldn't resist making the
change as bad as possible for the ones who asked for it.
If you are really unhappy with the present situation then I challenge
you to make a list and send it to the www-archive and you can discuss it
with Ian, the chairs, or whoever you wish to (me even).
Not sure what you're trying to say.
We have a working group mailing list, and I intend to continue to use it
when there's something to discuss. As far as I can tell, I didn't start
this thread, I just stated that there's IMHO no consensus for a/@ping.
Remember, it was me that publicly criticised the process and the way
that Ian was editing the spec. I said to Ian privately that I wanted him
to prove me wrong, and over the past year he has done that. I have
confidence in the way that he edits the spec and the way that he is not
biased on what feedback he adds to it. I wouldn't have changed my
opinion on this matter without careful consideration.
Yes. I see your mileage varies.
Have you ever heard the saying: The grass is always greener on the other
side of the fence? It's very easy to think that if this or that changed
everything would be perfect. :)
For things to be perfect changing to the other side of the fence won't
be sufficient. In particular, because HTML5 needs to take past history
into account.
BR, Julian
