Re: HTML plan review at upcoming AB

On 02/13/2015 12:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>  From the plan review itself:
>>
>>> This is work in progress. It has only been looked at by Sam, Paul,
>>> PLH, and Robin. This document has no official status and was simply
>>> produced in response to a request from the AB. Some elements of this
>>> plan have been rejected previously and could undergo substantial
>>> changes before coming into effect.
>>
>> Full plan can be found here:
>>
>>   http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html
>
> I believe it is inappropriate to enshrine any exclusive group as the
> gateway for what goes into HTML, whether that group is a small set of
> companies that happen to dominate current browser marketshare, or a
> small set of individuals that happen to dominate an IRC club.

Quote from the plan:

"We would be willing to entertain discussions of alternatives, but only 
if such proposals include details describing how the both financial and 
technical aspects will be addressed."

> Furthermore, I see no reason to assign that role to the WHATWG.
> Triage tends to be dominated by whomever does the work, regardless of
> their role or official title, with the exception of decisions that have
> been made by the working group.
>
> If the intent of this process is to continue adhering to the decisions
> made by the working group, and to allow the working group to override
> any triage when it chooses to do so, then any individual(s) can take on
> the role of triage without making it separate from the WG.  There is
> no need to assign that role to some other group even if only people in
> that group are willing to do the work.

Quote from the plan:

"Over the past few years HTML-related bugs have been filed in both the 
WHATWG and the HTML WG. This duplication is at best a waste of effort 
and at worst induces confusion on its own."

> OTOH, if the intent of this plan is to replace or reduce decisions
> made by this group to only those deemed acceptable in triage, then
> consider this an objection to that plan.  That would be nothing more
> than a rubber-stamp process.  I would rather put an end to the W3C
> than participate in such an effort.

The W3C is bigger than HTML.

If you are suggesting closing down the HTML WG, that's operationally 
indistinguishable from delegating that work to the WHATWG, which is 
something you object to.

> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                     <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Senior Principal Scientist, Adobe   <http://www.adobe.com/>

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 20:40:05 UTC