Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
I believe the process to register a formal objection is to send an
email to this group, and label it as such. If there's another group
I should contact, please let me know.
I'll check into the process (and am copying Mike and Dan as they are
the W3C team contacts for this working group, but meanwhile three
things:
1) This Mailing list is described as a "Miscellaneous. Mail-to-web
gateway" on http://lists.w3.org/. My understanding is that its
primary purpose is to allow a public URI to be associated with an
email that is sent. As a general rule, it is a great resource for
taking discussions "off-line" which may later need to be referred
to. In any case, I have seen this email, and will take it seriously.
Oops, then this is definitely the wrong place for this.
I'll resend to the HTML WG list, then.
Thanks!
2) The document in question is merely a Working Draft at this point
which means that it may be unstable and may not meet all of the
Working Group's needs at this point. As such, a formal objection
seems a bit premature, but only by a little bit as it makes perfect
sense to me for Formal Objections to block advancement to Last Call.
I'm not sure how we can move to Last Call.
Right now, we have no commitment one way or another from Microsoft on
most aspects of HTML 5. According to Ian, Microsoft has the strongest
veto of all. If it were to come in and just make a statement -- no
we're not supporting Canvas, or MathML, or SVG, or any number of
other elements--, just a statement of fact, then supposedly, *poof*,
they're gone.
Why call this HTML 5? We might as well call it the Sword of Damocles
HTML and be done with it.
As it is, we've already run into one vendor/one veto with the video
element. Oh, and that's another one that MS has not made a commitment
about.
Getting Microsoft to actually review the document is something that is
clearly important. By the way, and somewhat related: the working
group previously decided to include canvas, and did so over objections
by myself and Chris Wilson at the time:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/15
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results
Since Chris works for Microsoft, following what Ian has said, the Canvas
element should be removed. To ensure consistent adherence to one
vendor/one vote.
The reason why I bring this up is that the group decided to include
canvas, so therefore any draft which does not include canvas could not
be considered as a candidate draft for Last Call... unless there was
another group decision which reversed the prior decision.
3) I need to think more about what it means to have a formal
objection to process as opposed to a result. Formal objections to
results, like a document which contain features like video which do
not lead to interoperability due to a lack of specifying a common
royalty-free codec: that is something I can get my head around. A
formal objection to removing Canvas (I chose Canvas as that is an
item that the working group previously voted on and decided to
include) in the unlikely event that Microsoft makes a statement that
they will never support such a feature -- that too, I can
understand. But a Formal Objection to something that not only
hasn't happened, but may never happen -- that is something I need to
ponder on further and consult with others.
I understand I'm not following procedures. Sorry about that. But it
doesn't lessen my concerns.
Do we assume, then, that the one vendor/one veto rule only applies
when a company specifically states it will not support something?
Shouldn't it also apply when a company doesn't say whether they will
or won't support one aspect of the document or not?
If the purpose behind this one vendor/one veto approach is to ensure
we no longer have what we had in the past, the inability to use all
of the available web technology because of lack of support among one
or more browsers, then unless the five vendor companies specifically
state they will support each element, or concept, documented in HTML
5, we should immediately seek to remove it now--rather than wait
until some later time when we finally have to corner each and ask,
"Well, will you or won't you?"
I focused on SVG, MathML, Canvas in the objection, but there's a more
serious item that was brought up in my comments last night: the XML
serialization of HTML 5. It is very much at risk, because we have no
commitment from one company to support XHTML 5. And with one
vendor/one vote, that means we can kiss it good-bye, too.
We can't depend on anything now. Oh, a few scraps tossed us, some new
goodies like client side storage. You know, to keep the kiddies
entertained.
I take things that people tell me as truth. Ian has stated one
vendor/one vote. Not saying anything about canvas, SVG, XHTML,
MathML, etc., is a vote. It's a vote saying, "No". Ignoring the great
hulking elephant in the corner while professing to adhere to
consistent procedures is not something I'm particularly good at.
Sorry, Sam. I am new to this, and most likely not following proper
procedures. But there is more than a hint of lack of consistency to
the procedures followed with HTML 5, so in a way, I'm only following
the course others have set.
Don't worry too much about the process... you have a legitimate
concern, and we are here to help with the process.
I am also not suggesting that Ian is lying. In fact, I presume that
he is serious. My point is that first and foremost that the situation
to which you are objecting is both hypothetical and not binding to the
Working Group. As far as I am concerned, Ian can add or remove what
he wants to his draft, and should he remove canvas, any member of the
working group can produce another draft that restores it. If this
were done, and both drafts were submitted for consideration, only the
latter would meet the basic requirements agreed to by the working group.
Taking a quick peek at the charter of the group[1], removing XHTML 5
would also not meet requirements, which again means that we would have
to have a group decision to pursue a different path before we could
consider a draft which removes such.
And, again, I'll note that group decisions can -- and have -- been
made without unanimity. In particular, against the expressed opinion
of representatives from specific browser vendors, including Microsoft.
And, for that matter, myself. But when a group decision is made, I
intend to support it.
Shelley
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter
This is probably the better place to have this discussion, I'm already
cluttering up the HTML WG too much. To me, though, this highlights the
real problem with HTML 5.
Ian comes in from the WhatWG side with his rules he applies to what will
or won't be in the specification. But then there's a completely
different set of rules on the W3C side, and the two are not compatible.
Angry contention results, lots of back and forth, some of which occurs
in the WhatWG group, some in the HTML WG and lots in Twitter and IRC.
So the HTML 5 document is really based on this hodge podge of
inconsistent principles, erratically applied, typically based on what
Ian says, except in the rare cases where there's enough noise to shout
him down, and where the only thing we can count on is that we can't
count on anything.
OK. Good to know I'm finally catching on.
Shelley
