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

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:10:44 -0400
Message-Id: <7D3AF0F4-CD6B-4481-8A61-24B407F173B3@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, lbolstad@opera.com
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> - that the W3C HTML Working Group adops the WHAT Working Group's  
> HTML5 as the starting point for further HTML development

Sounds great. I agree with all comments in this thread that nothing  
in the WHATWG HTML should be considered rubber stamped though, nor  
should discussion on the WHATWG list be used as  means by which to  
dismiss others arguments against a point.

If someone on this list feels there is sufficient reason readdress a  
WHATWG HTML5 feature they should be given room to voice their  
concerns and take seriously and not pointed at the WHATWG mail  
archive and told "they decided this already, no need to discuss more".

I know this is mentioned in the last paragraph of this quoted email,  
but I believe it also is worth point out because I've gotten the  
feeling from reading emails on this list and from IRC conversation  
that some people who were involved in the WHATWG feel as if changing  
anything or going a different route would be wrong since their effort  
on that spec must be the "right" solution.

In short, lets not let previous involvement in a separate group cloud  
the judgement and discussions on the list here.

> - that the W3C's next-generation HTML specification is officially  
> named "HTML 5"

Great.

> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5  
> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG effort

This seems okay. I do have one concern regarding his comments that  
the WHATWG will continue development of their spec separately. Others  
have already made comments that "Hixie's time would be better  
spent..." and it seems that if his time is better spent doing  
anything its working on this spec and not the WHAT WG spec since  
that's going to be largely a redundant task.

I also worry that if we decide to change or remove something in the  
adopted WHATWG HTML5 spec that it will be shot down because the  
WHATWG spec needs to be "parallel" or a superset.

Is Hixie and the WHATWG willing to concede if we (the HTML WG) change  
something that they *must* change it too to remain a proper superset?

>
> If HTML5 is adopted as a starting point, the contents of the  
> document would still be up for review and revision, but we would  
> start with the existing text. A suitable next step might be a high- 
> level review of functionality added and removed relative to  
> HTML4.01, followed by focused discussion and review of individual  
> topic areas, including both content already in the spec and  
> proposed new features. Discussions should be guided by common  
> principles along the lines of <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ 
> ProposedDesignPrinciples>
>

This next step sounds good.

- Elliott
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 22:10:49 UTC

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