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

Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:40:43 -0500
Message-ID: <497E580B.5090705@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>>>>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#audience
>>> Thanks.
>>> With this, I am happy to publish this working draft as a WD.
>>
>> Just so there is no confusion, would it be fair to say that you would 
>> have no problem with the chairs interpreting that as supporting a 
>> First Public Working Draft, in accordance to the following definition?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
>>
>>> However, I think it needs the following changes before progressing 
>>> past WD:
>>>  - How to parse documents that are written using the syntax defined 
>>> in     that document (needed for tools intended to conform to the     
>>> specification, since otherwise there's no way to know what the 
>>> tools     are supposed to do).
>>>  - The DOM APIs and implementation rules for those APIs, since 
>>> producers     of documents using the features in this specification 
>>> need those APIs     to fully use those features.
>>>  - Definition of the event model and task queue model for     
>>> implementations, since that will be needed to define the APIs     
>>> mentioned.
>>>  - The Window object, browsing contexts, and its related APIs, since 
>>> that     will be needed to define the APIs mentioned.
>>> As it stands, the document is not appropriate for its intended audience.
>>
>> Would tracking these as issues suffice?
> 
> Perhaps Ian was overly subtle, but as far as I can tell, resolving these 
> issues would result in the full HTML 5 spec, rendering the exercise 
> pointless.

Perhaps.  For all we know, HTML5 is pointless.  Obviously, I don't think 
it is, otherwise I wouldn't be here, but there always is that possibility.

I'm a bit philosophical about this.  I've been involved with open source 
for over a decade now, and the best way to deal with eager volunteers is 
  not to attempt to "educate" them and certainly not to tell them *no*. 
  Generally it is much better to given them an area to play.  Often they 
learn something.  Sometimes they are right, and *I* am the one who 
learns something.

Both are good outcomes.

> The fact is, there is a serious disagreement about whether the HTML5 
> spec should be split into multiple normative parts according to the 
> boundary of "specification of the syntax of a conforming document", and 
> "everything else". The last time this was discussed, the chairs asked 
> for a moratorium on further discussion of this topic (which as Philip 
> Taylor points out, was never lifted and is presumably still in effect). 
> It seems to me that publishing this document as REC track or as 
> unspecified track but still claiming parts of it are normative, without 
> actually discussing the underlying issue or coming to consensus (or at 
> least a decision), is not good process. It looks like an attempt to 
> sneak a decision about the issue past the group.

I'd like very much to lift that moratorium, but apparently Chris has 
been tied up in some sort of release :-).  I'd prefer not to 
unilaterally lift this without his concurrence.  I'm sure that this will 
be resolved shortly.

But meanwhile, this discussion is very public, as are the rules for 
publishing a FPWD:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd

I've provided that link several times.  Section 7.4.1 is fairly short. 
My read of that section is that lifting of the moratorium should not be 
considered in any way a prerequisite for this decision, but I would like 
to see the moratorium lifted anyway, making the point moot.

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate Ian answering the questions I asked.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:41:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT