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

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

From: DESCHAMPS Stephane ROSI/SI CLIENT <stephane.deschamps@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:35:24 +0200
To: "'Robert Burns'" <rob@robburns.com>, "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c7bf11$b97bb530$4111b30a@stquentiny.francetelecom.fr>


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De la part de Robert Burns
> Envoyé : mardi 3 juillet 2007 23:33


> > After the header, both the WHATWG draft and the W3C 
> Editor's Draft are 
> > identical in content. The diff between HTML 4.01 and the 
> current W3C 
> > Editor's Draft is not a matter of opinion and the diff is 
> exactly the 
> > same as the diff between HTML 4.01 and the current WHATWG draft.
> 
> And that's already been published by the WhatWG. So what 
> possible advantage could there be in this WG publishing what 
> someone else has already published? We could publish the 
> latest cover story from Vogue magazine here too and that 
> would be simply a factual republishing of someone else's 
> work. Would that fulfill the heartbeat requirement?  
> Look at us; we have a heartbeat; we can publish other's work. 
> We need to publish work that reflects the work of this WG. 
> Just give it some time and we'll have something to publish. 
> Rushing this does not help us get our work done.

I know I'm a newcomer but I won't be able to re-read the whole heap of
emails exchanged so far, so forgive me if I did not understand an issue,
feel free to correct me.

IMHO, we need to publish a starting point. We need, also, to acknowledge the
work done so far, WhatWG or otherwise. Considering the current flow of work
relies on the WhatWG's work, it's natural that people who *are* familiar
with said WhatWG will see there is no difference.

As for many of us (to which I belong), the W3C still is our lighthouse for
reference, evolution and standardization.

I don't know if 'endorse' is the right work in english and apologise for not
being able to find the right english equivalent of 'endosser' (french), but
that the W3C 'endorses' the work of the WhatWG makes it clear for people not
familiar with other organisations where HTML 5 at for the moment.

If we are to further HTML 5, we have to have didactic documents telling
people, either just visiting, or using the W3C as a reference, or planning
to enter the WG: 'look, this is where the discussion has gone for the
moment', even if it's only a copy of the WhatWG. And that is *exactly* what
this diff document does. Anne has very clearly mentioned the sources for
HTML 5 [1].

Again, forgive me if I'm missing an obvious point, but I can't understand
the problem.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/#ref-html5>

-- 
Best regards,
Stéphane Deschamps
  Web HCI expert
  orange / france telecom group


*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 14:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT