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

Re: Neutrality in "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:53:15 -0500
Message-Id: <82CCCD2D-1372-428E-AAB6-2B1A2BC32E14@robburns.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:05, Robert Burns wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:48 +0200, Robert Burns  
>>> <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:32:51 +0200, Robert Burns  
>>>>> <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The only value for this differences document currently is to  
>>>>>> help drive the decision making of this WG.
>>>>> It's to help people outside this WG who don't have time to read  
>>>>> all of HTML 5 or follow this mailing list to see what the  
>>>>> differences are and comment on them. It gives them the ability  
>>>>> to review the document as well and it seems to be helping  
>>>>> members of this WG as well. (It's also very much non-normative  
>>>>> and not binding in any way.)
>>>> People outside the WG can read about the differences here:
>>>> <http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4>
>>> Correct, they could. However, it seems that when the W3C does  
>>> something it gets much wider exposure. For instance, the above  
>>> wiki page appeared on maybe a single blog while the editor draft  
>>> I wrote appeared on hundreds. Having more exposure is very  
>>> important I think.
>> Except premature exposure can be a very bad thing. We're not ready  
>> yet.
> If you are concerned about public perception, why would you prefer  
> the appearance that in order to find out what is going on, people  
> should go see the WHATWG stuff instead of the W3C stuff?

I am concerned about perception of W3C and the work of this WG. I am  
not as concerned about the perception of other organizations. To the  
extend that I am concerned about the perception of other  
organizations, I have little or no control about addressing that  
concern (including the WhatWG).

> (Moreover, earlier it seemed that even participants to this WG  
> didn't find the cited WHATWG wiki page sufficient to inform  
> themselves.)

No  it is most definitely not sufficient information. It is not  
sufficient for the general public, nor is it sufficient for members  
of this WG. It was however, a necessary step in assisting us in  
reading the main HTML 5 document. It has already helped me and I  
would guess other WG members perceive differences that are not easily  
gleaned from the HTML5 draft. Since those of us participating in the  
WG generally have a strong knowledge of HTML4 it serves as a very  
nice primer for our discussions. However, it reflects the differences  
between the WhatWG's draft and HTML4. Since this WG has not yet put  
its own mark on the HTML5  draft, it cannot possibly represent W3C  
differences between the HTML5 draft and HTML4.

Also as has already been highlighted by many members, it is not quite  
sufficient in that it doesn't help us understand how the use-case/ 
problem/solution methodology has been applied in the prior work on  
the draft. Understanding that would serve as an excellent example to  
help us all understand the abstract principles we're being asked to  
adhere to.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC