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

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:49:31 +0100
Message-ID: <461C147B.2080508@cam.ac.uk>
To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> 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.

I have no idea if you have anything I said in mind but since I have 
explicitly mentioned reading the WHATWG mailing list archives when 
commenting on a feature, you might have. So, to be explicit, neither I 
nor, to my knowledge, anyone else has ever suggested that the WHATWG 
work should be rubberstamped. However, assuming we take that document as 
our starting point, the history of our specification is, initially at 
least, the history of the WHATWG effort. Therefore I believe that, 
before making a proposal, it is polite to make a search of the WHATWG 
archive for relevant discussion (in the same way that it is polite for 
new members to do so with this group's archive). That way people do not 
have to spend their time repeating the reasoning behind well-documented 
design decisions, leaving our discourse focussed on actual weaknesses 
and omissions in the specification. Of course this is not meant to imply 
that if you find a design decision you disagree with you should keep 
quiet about it; I merely mean that it's in everyone's best interest if 
discussion is as informed as possible and that the WHATWG mailing list 
archives are an important source of information about why certain things 
are the way they are.

>> - 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 think the word "separately" here is misleading. I believe that Hixie 
has said that if he edits both specs he will probably generate the pair 
from the same source document, adding different branding. That has been 
done before with e.g. the XBL 2.0 spec.


-- 
"Instructions to follow very carefully.
Go to Tesco's.  Go to the coffee aisle.  Look at the instant coffee. 
Notice that Kenco now comes in refil packs.  Admire the tray on the 
shelf.  It's exquiste corrugated boxiness. The way how it didn't get 
crushed on its long journey from the factory. Now pick up a refil bag. 
Admire the antioxidant claim.  Gaze in awe at the environmental claims 
written on the back of the refil bag.  Start stroking it gently, its my 
packaging precious, all mine....  Be thankful that Amy has only given 
you the highlights of the reasons why that bag is so brilliant."
-- ajs
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 22:49:39 UTC

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