W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:31:58 +0900
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081119043158.GB17634@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 2008-11-18 16:38 -0800:

>  In particular, we are chartered to produce "a single specification 
>  deliverable for the HTML Working Group, the HTML specification", "for 
>  describing the semantics of documents and applications on the World Wide 
>  Web" and including "Document Object Model (DOM) interfaces providing APIs 
>  for such a language". Clearly our charter expects a monolithic spec covering 
>  many things.

Given that others have taken objection to certain parts of the
HTML5 draft on the basis that they are outside the scope of the
charter, I'm not sure it's very productive to get into a
charter-lawyering debate about how closely the current HTML5 draft
aligns with the charter.

Regardless, as Hixie has already pointed out, there is already one
part that has basically been spun off as separate spec: The
Workers spec.

>  I think some forms of splits, such as putting programming interfaces which 
>  could apply to any interactive Web markup language and not just HTML into 
>  seprate specs under the WebApps WG, would not violate the spirit of this 
>  charter.

Right, splitting out parts of the current draft as separate specs
does not necessarily mean that they'll become deliverables in the
HTML WG. They could become deliverables in the WebApps WG or in
other groups.

>   But splitting the DOM from the markup language, thereby making the 
>  "main" markup language spec

(Seems like the rest of that sentence is missing, but I guess
you've maybe completed the thought in the paragraph below.)

>  if "what is (and what is not) HTML5" is limited solely to defining what 
>  documents are conforming HTML5 documents, then this kind of split will not 
>  fulfill the letter or the spirit of our Charter or our Design Principles.

Again, I'm not really sure it's to our benefit to start a
charter-lawyering debate about this. A couple possible logical
outcome that could happen in response to that which might not be
so welcome (depending on your perspective) would be a move to
recharter the group.

>  Anyone is of course free to question our group's founding documents and 
>  previous decisions. But let's be clear - what is being proposed by many is a 
>  radical change in approach from what we have been asked to do by the W3C, 
>  and from what many of us have seen as our mission.

I can well understand you and others viewing it as a change in
approach from what you've see as our mission, but it does seem
clear that there are others within the group and outside the group
who do see what is being proposed as part of our mission, even if
it is a radical change in approach.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 04:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC