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

Re: Why splitting HTML5 into several specs has failed to work (Was: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0712032256220.3737@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> I also agree that splitting a 3D Canvas API out would increase the overall
> workload.  However, I see it as extremely unlikely that doing such would
> result in a net increase in the workload of the editors working on the base
> document.

The point is that we don't have enough volunteers, so the "editors working 
on the base document" would _be_ the editors working on whatever is split 
out. That's why it's not feasible to split stuff out (and still work on 
it). Hyatt and I just don't have the time. We already have literally 
dozens of specs that are sitting neglected, in wait of editors. I 
personally am editor of a bunch of specs, several of which I had to push 
off to 2018 or later because of my committment to HTML5. (For example I 
just don't have the time to work on CSS3 lists, which is quite far along. 
Nobody has stepped up to take that spec over, though.)


> Furthermore, there is another key difference between these two.  If 
> setTimeout isn't spec'ed, that's an indication that the spec isn't 
> complete.  If a 3D Canvas API isn't spec'ed, that's an indication that 
> that features is ready for standardization.

How can we determine the difference? i.e. how can I know whether to drop a 
feature because it's not ready, vs knowing that I musn't drop a feature 
because it would be incomplete? So far, I've been using my judgement. It 
often makes people unhappy, as what they think is critical is something I 
have put off due to it being unimportant. This isn't the case with, for 
instance, including arbitrary vocabularies in text/html -- I just haven't 
gotted around to that issue yet, just like I haven't gotten around to the 
1000s of other outstanding issues of equal importance -- but if it was, 
would you be happy? What would you say if I said your pet feature just 
"wasn't ready for standardisation"?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 23:03:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:11 GMT