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

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:18:13 -0500
Message-ID: <461C2945.5030309@w3.org>
To: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

Henrik Dvergsdal wrote:
> 
>> So what exactly is your opinion of 
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Changes_from_HTML4 ? What does it not 
>> offer that you really need?
> 
> Well, first of all I hear its not complete :-)
> 
> I guess the level of detail is ok. The important thing is to ensure that 
> it is kept up to date when things are removed/added/modified in HTML5 so 
> that we don't have to compare the specs all the time.
 >
> It would also save a lot of time if there could also be a few comments 
> on the rationale behind the proposals and some info on their current 
> status in the WG. E.g. if there is consensus about a particular change, 
> it would be useful to keep a note in the log to restrain people from 
> bringing it up for discussion again.

As I understand the proposal, it doesn't give anything that status
of "this design issue is decided and discussion of it is out of order".

I do expect to keep a list of design issues that the WG has
decided on, and when somebody brings one up, I'll refer them
to the decision history/rationale and note that unless they have
new information that merits re-considering the issue, discussion
of it is out of order.

My working sketch of that list is http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16 ;
so far, the list of issues that the WG has decided is empty.


>>>> The idea of the HTML5 proposal is to effectively replace HTML4, 
>>>> XHTML1 and DOM2HTML with something (substantially) better. Not to 
>>>> update them.
>>>
>>> The charter says our mission is to "continue the evolution of HTML" 
>>> that we "will maintain and produce incremental revisions of the HTML 
>>> standard". This sounds more like revolution to me.
>>
>> Why? (Note that the HTML5 proposal is backwards compatible with 
>> deployed content and implementations.)
> 
> In my mind "effectively replacing" and "not updating" is not the same as 
> "continuing the evolution" and "producing incremental revisions". 
> Consequently, I don't think adopting this idea will be in accord with 
> the charter.
 >
> Even though HTML5 is to be backwards compatible with HTML4, the 
> recommended document set will be changed significantly. If you want to 
> draw on the experience of web developers, it is important to relate this 
> to the corresponding recommended set in HTML4, including those places 
> where we are strenghtening and tightening the spec.

I take this as advice to the chair about a conflict between
this proposal and our charter. I'm not inclined to see it that way.
The charter says we're to deliver "A language evolved from HTML4"
   http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables
I consider this to be a proposal to skip from the HTML 4 spec to the
HTML 5 spec in one step.

You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the
step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative
ways to move forward.

But I'm not inclined to see the charter as a compelling argument
against this proposal.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 00:18:19 UTC

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