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

Re: Public Understanding of the Timeframe of HTMl 5 Development

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:12:13 -0600
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Justin Thorp <juth@loc.gov>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1197346333.3767.468.camel@pav>

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 01:43 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Justin Thorp wrote:
> > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Guide/HTML5Process

I don't see anything there that isn't in the schedule
on the WG homepage, so I replaced the content with
a link to

I'm happy to take advice about our schedule, but the WG
can't unilaterally make it substantially longer; we have
to ask the W3C management and membership if it's OK to
consume more staff resources, take longer to get to
market, etc.

> Note that the HTML5 process started back in 2004. Also, I'm not sure the 
> dates on that timetable are really realistic (last call 6 months from now, 
> when it's taken us more than 9 months to publish a FPWD, and we haven't 
> even managed that yet?).

Yes, the LC milestone needs updating. I'm mulling it over;
advice is welcome.

>  Different people have different expectations of 
> what dates certain things are expected by, so it may be helpful to use a 
> less passive voice when giving expected dates.


> I've updated the FAQ on this:
>    http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML_5_be_finished.3F

I see "It is estimated that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation
in the year 2022 or later".

While it's subject to change, the plan of record is:

2010-09 HTML5 Recommendation

Please include that estimate instead of or in addition
to any other estimates when you're describing this project
to wide audiences.

> Also, I think it would help to emphasise how different parts of the spec 
> have different levels of maturity (e.g. how <canvas> is widely implemented 
> and shipping, whereas <datagrid> is just a draft).

I have repeatedly found that attempts to mix maturity levels
in one document are not cost-effective; the best way to
explain to people that <datagrid> has a different status
from <canvas> is to put it in a different document.
I hope you'll give the idea serious consideration.

>  What people really care 
> about is when they can use the features, not when the spec will be "done".

I also hope we publish test materials and implementation
evaluation reports soon... reports that make the maturity of
various features (and combinations of features...) apparent
to wide audiences.

I haven't heard much since the "story telling and test
cases" session in Cambridge, but I still think it's
a promising approach.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 04:12:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:28 UTC