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

Re: HTML5 proposal response

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:59:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0704192343441.17772@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> I do feel very strongly, though, that if we are taking this as a source 
> material for HTML in the HTML WG, then we must own the spec thereafter - 
> this equates to take a drop from the WHATWG, and moving it into the 
> W3C's domain.

It's not entirely clear what this means, but just to repeat what I said 
earlier -- I would only be able to be editor for this working group if the 
WHATWG and HTMLWG specs were the same actual document. Editing the WHATWG 
spec is a fulltime job that I'm not going to stop doing; and I simply 
don't have the time to edit two specs, as much as I would love to.

That, of course, doesn't mean that the spec couldn't be hosted on the 
W3C's domain. I have already used exactly this process with two other 
specs in the past. Both the XBL2 specification and the Web Forms 2 
specification (both edited under the WAF working group) are hosted 
simultaneously on the W3C site and on another site (mozilla.org in the 
case of XBL2, and whatwg.org in the case of WF2); the documents differing 
only in their headers:

   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl2.html

   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/web-forms-2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
   http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/


> I additionally have a severe concern with the proposed mode of working 
> that Ian has espoused [1] - that, in short, the HTML WG is just another 
> source of input into the specification.  In my opinion, the HTML WG owns 
> their own specification.

I don't really understand what this means either. If I am to be editor, I 
will take input from many sources -- I won't only take input from this 
working group, ignoring blogs, forums, bug databases, etc -- as I have 
previously indicated. I don't see how this would not mean that we don't 
"own" the specification. I wouldn't want to be an editor if the operating 
model is that the editor merely waits for formal decisions before making 
any changes -- such a development model would change our timeline from 
15-years-to-REC to something more on the order of 50-years-to-REC, and 
would be far to stressful an environment for me.

Just to clarify, I have no intention of putting down ultimatums or 
anything, nor of forcing this working group to accept a particular working 
model or development environment. I just want it to be clear that my offer 
to volunteer as editor is contingent on my efforts being accepted in a 
context that I have time for and that I don't find stressful. There would 
be no point my volunteering to do something that I don't have time to do, 
or which would be bad for my health, as I hope everyone would agree!

If the group believes that the edits to the HTML working group 
specification must not be made to the WHATWG spec at the same time, or if 
the group believes that the editing model I've described is not the model 
that the HTML group should follow, I will support those decisions, and 
would still want to be a part of the group, just not as an editor.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 23:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC