W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

RE: The HTMLWG and WHATWG (Was: Default (informal) Style Sheet)

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:20:53 -0700
To: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5C276AFCCD083E4F94BD5C2DA883F05A27946E72E9@tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

One answer to this question I've heard is "not all members of the WHATWG want to or can join the HTML WG."  If it's personal or political reasons preventing them joining, I guess I can't say any more than "bummer" - I'd be happy to discuss with them offline (or on) their reasons in more detail to see if they can be resolved.  If they are prevented from joining by their companies due to IP concerns, well, then I have to say the Patent Policy is there for exactly this reason - so things like the Apple canvas IP won't prevent the spec from being free to implement.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sierk Bornemann
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:06 AM
To: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: The HTMLWG and WHATWG (Was: Default (informal) Style Sheet)



Am 03.04.2007 um 16:06 schrieb Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer:

> The issue I've seen it that one group comes to consensus, passes it
> over to the other group, the other group starts discussion again,
> comes to a new consensus that may be different, passes it back to
> the first group, the first group that already reached consensus re-
> starts discussion, comes to a different consensus, passes it over...
>
> Alternatively, one group comes to consensus, passes it over to the
> other group saying "no changes possible, just sign off please" to
> avoid endless loops as described before.
>
> Clearly, both approaches aren't optimal. This is an organizational
> problem that is completely independent from whether or not the
> liaison person between the groups or joint editor is doing a great
> job or not, nor am I suggesting that isolation is therefore a great
> idea.

Sebastian, I fully agree with you.
In the first days of this new HTML WG, I allready stated, that I am
convinced to bundle all forces into this new HTML WG under the roof
of the W3C. The invention of HTML and CSS historically comes out of
the W3C house and not ot of the WHATWG. What WHATWG has done so far
is good work, indeed. But it comes out of the W3C, now has to find
its way into it.
My opinion: here, in this new and intentionally more open HTML WG,
lead and headed by the W3C, should be the focus of discussion and
work. From now on, not in the WHATWG alone, not in the HTMLWG alone,
not in both parallel with parallel trunks of diskussions. I stress:
one trunk, not two. Bundled. Lead by the Chairs and Co-chairs. Only
then, the goal can be achieved to renew the HTML language with the
given perspective and with the given timeline. Not to mention the
public relation aspect to the people, web developers, developers,
content deliverers out there, who -- in the middle to long term --
wait for results they can work with.
I don't think, anybody would benefit, if the work, we have to do, is
split into 2 Working Groups with 2 discussion pools, 2 timelines, 2
different results.
What's the problem for WHATWG and its members, to say: "Our work so
far is good, but it has gained a greater focus, it has got now the
focus of the W3C. So let's bundle our power. Let's merge. Into the
HTMLWG, led by the W3C."?


Sierk
--
Sierk Bornemann | http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 16:21:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC