W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:03:39 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTilq1CeZ2hTSat2WH9GPd6aVO7r3MpbFolAWwXJY@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Doug,

I wrote:

>> The 18 June 2010 editors' draft states, "Work on this specification is
>> also done at the WHATWG. The W3C HTML working group actively pursues
>> convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group
>> charter."

Doug wrote:

> So, the aim of the charter to "actively pursue convergence with
> WHATWG, encouraging open participation" has clearly been met from the W3C HTML
> WG side.

Thank you for the clarification. Do you think that the quote above
from 18 June 2010 editors' draft is okay to leave in the spec as is?

Or would something like this work better?
"The HTML Working Group has and continues to pursue convergence with
WHATWG, encouraging open participation within the bounds of the W3C
patent policy and available resources."

The draft currently omits anything about, "encouraging open
participation within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available
resources" which does illuminate full meaning. It also does not
recognize W3C efforts and accomplishments in pursuit of this goal.

Or do you think sentence:
"The W3C HTML working group actively pursues convergence with the
WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group charter."
should simply be omitted from the draft? It doesn’t give the full
picture, and may skew meaning.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson


On 6/19/10, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Ian-
>
> Ian Hickson wrote (on 6/18/10 1:13 PM):
>>
>> I would also like to suggest that we should be more frank with the readers
>> of the specification about the differences between the HTML WG HTML5
>> specification and the WHATWG HTML specification, since we are chartered to
>> persue convergence with that group.
>
> While we're being frank, we should reiterate the context in which the
> HTML WG charter was written [1].  At that time, it was not a foregone
> conclusion that the WHATWG spec would serve as the basis for the W3C
> HTML5 spec, nor that the W3C HTML5 would have the same editor as the
> WHATWG spec, nor that they would address the same set of design
> constraints, nor even that it would be called HTML5.
>
> When the HTML WG had just started work, you asked to be named as editor
> of both the WHATWG and W3C specs, with the proviso that you had total
> change control over both specs [2]; this was agreed to by the W3C HTML
> WG.  Maciej, on behalf of folks within Apple, Opera, and Mozilla,
> proposed that the W3C spec be based on the WHATWG spec [3]; this was
> agreed to [4], and the WHATWG spec was adopted wholecloth.  Over the
> course of many discussions, it was agreed that the design principles,
> use cases and requirements, methodology, forms strategy, and name of the
> HTML5 spec, among numerous other small and large decisions, converged to
> those of the WHATWG.  The W3C HTML WG itself has always been completely
> open to the WHATWG participants as Invited Experts, and eventually,
> Maciej, one of the chief players in the WHATWG, was made co-chair of the
> W3C HTML WG.
>
> So, the aim of the charter to "actively pursue convergence with WHATWG,
> encouraging open participation" has clearly been met from the W3C HTML
> WG side.  Speaking for myself (not my employer), I would like to see a
> clear message from WHATWG that it intends to act with similar good faith
> to present a straightforward collaboration with W3C so that the users,
> content authors, implementors, and specifiers know what constitutes the
> HTML5 spec.
>
> If there are differences between the W3C HTML5 spec and the WHATWG
> version, wouldn't it be clearer, and just as easy for you as editor of
> both, to maintain identical technical documents for the HTML5 spec
> itself, and to differentiate between the HTML5 spec and more speculative
> ongoing WHATWG work?  The theoretical purity of a single single WHATWG
> spec has its appeal, I'm sure, but it seems to be conflicting with the
> needs of those more important in the priority of constituencies.
>
> While I've been a casual participant in the WHATWG for several years,
> I'm afraid I don't know its process well enough to propose this change
> in the WHATWG document policy.  Could you please advise me on what steps
> I would need to take to put this to the larger WHATWG community, or
> point me to the decision by the WHATWG community where the decision to
> diverge was made?
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0025.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0429.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 13:04:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT