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

Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:22:54 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80706291322n28e91f87n89fbebc5a6cc11fc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

> But I don't see any suggested text for the proposed rationale.

The rationale for dropping the headers,longdesc and summary attributes
was presumably formulated by the WHAT WG when the decisions to drop
these attributes was made. I would like to see the rationale formally
recorded in the differences document, but if that is not possible,
then at least I propose that

in "1.1. Open Issues"
add to current text
The headers, longdesc and summary attributes.

"3.6. Dropped Attributes"
the text
"Some attributes from HTML 4 are no longer allowed in HTML 5"

On 29/06/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> I note some objections to my proposal to publish the
> differences document.
>  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/trdiff/results
> First, a "No, disagree" response says
> "Rationale based on design principles, for each and every
> dropped/added/changed element and attribute should be supplied."
> Well, perhaps it should. By all means, please do provide it.
> But until you do, to argue against publication because it hasn't been
> provided isn't helpful. Karl, Anne, you might add a note
> in the status section that more rationale is under discussion.
> I am quite sympathetic to...
> "In order to apply consistent decision making throughout the
> specification, it is critical to come to consensus on the design
> principles."
> By all means, please contribute to the design principles text(s).
> But I don't understand this as an argument against publishing
> the difference document.
> Another response goes further and formally objects:
> "it is unconscionable that the HTML WG should release a vastly different
> draft in toto without first outlining and cementing our design
> principles."
> Various people have outlined design principles, and I am doing
> what I can to cement them (with a W3C staff position* still
> not filled and my co-chair on holiday). You're welcome to help.
> But objecting to publication of the differences document isn't helpful.
> By the way, Gregory, the rest of that rationale goes well beyond the
> bounds of civility. I'm likely to dismiss that objection
> altogether unless you edit it.
> Another objection goes a little further...
> "As per the Formal Objection Guidelines[2]I propose that the "HTML 5
> differences from HTML 4" document be modified to clearly indicate the
> rationales for dropping the attributes in question and their status as
> being open issues, both in "1.1. Open Issues" and in "3.6. Dropped
> Attributes" section."
> But I don't see any suggested text for the proposed rationale.
> "1) Approximately five times as many respondents favoured publishing the
> design principles first as favoured publishing "HTML 5 differences from
> HTML 4"; given the W3C's position on consensus, it is clear that the
> first document to be agreed and published should be one outlining the
> design principles on which HTML 5 is to be based."
> That survey was a way for the chair(s) to collect advice about
> timing; it's not a technical issue. the W3C consensus policy is about
> technical design choices.
> I understand you disagree with my choice as chair about
> timing and priorities, and I will of course report your objection
> to The Director when we get to that point in the process
> some months from now, but it will not likely be relevant by then.
> A more relevant escalation path for non-technical matters such
> as this is to escalate to W3C management. Chris Lilley is the
> Domain Lead of the Interaction Domain, which this WG is part of.
> He reports to Steve Bratt and Tim Berners-Lee.
> http://www.w3.org/People/domain?domain=Interaction
> http://www.w3.org/People/domain?domain=Management
> "2) It will not be possible to publish anything on "HTML 5 differences
> from HTML 4" until a specification for HTML 5 has been agreed. At the
> moment, the specification represents the beliefs of, and consensus
> amongst, the WHAT WG rather than this group."
> I can't make sense of the "not possible" sentence. While it would
> be nice to have consensus, the chairs of this working group
> are (a) obliged to meet the heartbeat requirement** and
> (b) authorized to proceed without consensus, after considering
> all objections.
> * http://www.w3.org/2007/01/HTML-WebAPI-position.html
> **
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 20:22:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC