W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

RE: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:21:59 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, 'HTMLWG WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908092109430.18950@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, John Foliot wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this useful list of outstanding issues Ian. I too appreciate 
> that there are likely many other issues unresolved, but this appears to 
> be a good high-level start.

BTW, Manu, another one I just remember is the comment termination parsing 
rules, specifically whether we should continue to support the --!>/-- > 
comment terminators.


> I am curious, has WHAT WG reached out to relevant Working Groups within 
> and/or external to W3C seeking assistance in resolving any of these 
> areas?

The WHATWG is a mailing list. I'm not sure what it would mean for the 
WHATWG to reach out to anyone. I personally have been in constant contact 
with all the relevant working groups, yes. Most of the issues I listed are 
HTML5-specific and the only relevant working groups are HTMLWG/WHATWG.


> Handing off contentious issues to a group to work on seems an efficient 
> process for moving forward, especially with deadlines fast approaching; 
> it would seem that "...600 outstanding e-mails" [1] is a heavy burden 
> for any one person to have to carry alone, especially given the 
> gravidity of some of these outstanding issues.

Actually the issues chart shows that our current process is exactly on 
track to be done by October:

   http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.html

Many of the issues that Manu listed in the spec and that I listed in my 
e-mail are issues that have been resolved for years. For example, whether 
we should allow the /> element termination is a "controversial" issue, but 
the data and reasoning is pretty conclusive, we have to support it. I wish 
we didn't have to, but so long as we don't base the spec on opinions, that 
doesn't really come into it. Just because people disagree doesn't mean 
that the issue is still open -- there has to be data and reasoning that 
hasn't been considered, for the issue to be open. At least, that's how 
I've been operating.

(In the case of />, the biggest objector is me, I think, but my arguments 
are weak compared to those presented by others.)

Clearly, based on the open issues in the HTMLWG, that is not how Sam and 
the other HTMLWG chairs have been operating. I have no idea how the HTMLWG 
will be resolving its issues. It is likely, given the current trends, that 
the HTML5 spec will be ready for last call by October, but that the HTML5 
WG issues list will prevent the WG from actually publishing the LC draft 
on the TR/ page for long after that, due to people disagreeing with 
resolved issues without having raised data that hasn't been considered.

This (that people can arbitrarily delay work by disagreeing even when 
their arguments are weak) is the biggest difference between decisions 
based on opinions (the way the W3C operates), and decisions based on data 
and reasoning (the way the WHATWG operates), and is the main reason that 
the W3C tends to progress significantly slower than the HTML5 work has 
been progressing these past few years.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2009 21:22:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC