Summary
The Status section of the HTML5 specification[1] contains the following:
If you wish to make comments regarding this document in a manner that is tracked by the W3C, please submit them via using our public bug database. If you do not have an account then you can enter feedback using this form:
...
If you cannot do this then you can also e-mail feedback to public-html-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives), and arrangements will be made to transpose the comments to our public bug database. Alternatively, you can e-mail feedback to whatwg@whatwg.org (subscribe, archives). The editor guarantees that all substantive feedback sent to this list will receive a reply. However, such feedback is not considered formal feedback for the W3C process. All feedback is welcome.
...
The latest stable version of the editor's draft of this specification is always available on the W3C CVS server and in the WHATWG Subversion repository. The latest editor's working copy (which may contain unfinished text in the process of being prepared) contains the latest draft text of this specification (amongst others). For more details, please see the WHATWG FAQ.
There are various ways to follow the change history for the HTML
specifications:
E-mail notifications of changes
HTML-Diffs mailing list (diff-marked HTML versions for each change):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/latest
Commit-Watchers mailing list (complete source diffs):
http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/commit-watchers-whatwg.org
Real-time notifications of changes:
Generated diff-marked HTML versions for each change:
http://twitter.com/HTML5
All (non-editorial) changes to the spec source: http://twitter.com/WHATWG
Browsable version-control record of all changes:
CVSWeb interface with side-by-side diffs: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/
Annotated summary with unified diffs:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker
Raw Subversion interface: svn checkout http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps/
The W3C HTML Working Group is the W3C working group responsible for this specification's progress along the W3C Recommendation track. This specification is the 25 October 2010 Editor's Draft.
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.
---
Remove the WhatWG references in the Status section.
Rationale
The WhatWG document that is linked in the Status section is not comparable to the document a person will find in the W3C. A naive but interested individual may follow a link to the WhatWG document, assuming both documents are the same. They are not.
The so-called "editor's version" of the WhatWG document doesn't have the same title as the W3C document. Rather than reference "HTML5", which the reviewer might pardonably expect, he or she will find a document labeled "Web Applications 1.0". The version number is given as "Living Standard", which is not a term that the W3C has originated, nor is it a term that has ever been seen before within the W3C standards community. This, of course, will generate confusion, especially because when one accesses a link labeled "editor's draft" one should be able to expect to at least access a version of HTML5--not something completely different.
The only way a person won't be confused, significantly confused in fact, is if they're intimately familar with the politics that has led these two documents to be grossly different. You can't make an assumption that a person has such knowledge.
A counter-proposal[2] for this issue has made the following statement:
"WHATWG's contributions to the development of HTML5 are substantial, to say the least. Acknowledging its existence, briefly explaining its relationship to the W3C and linking to several useful resources hosted by the WHATWG is the least that the W3C could to.
With the WHATWG having dropped the "5" from HTML5, the risk of confusion is lower than ever. More importantly, lacking evidence of actual confusion, acting pre-emptively because there might be confusion is a waste of everyone's time."
Supposedly, a standards effort isn't one where people or organizations are primarily concerned with getting "proper credit". Standards development is, in many ways, a selfless activity. Many people have participated in developing HTML5 and are content with a brief mention in the acknowledgement section.
This acknowledgement section at the end of the HTML5 document can also serve as a location for ensuring that WhatWG gets the credit the organization deserves. The acknowledgement can be as verbose and effusive as anyone could wish.
As to the removal of the "5" and the "living standard", rather than clarify issues, they're only going to add to the confusion. "Living standard" is not defined in the W3C, so there's no reference between the two documents based on this term. To all intents and purposes, the WhatWG document that is linked looks like a completely different document. In many significant ways, it is.
A last concern with linking to the WhatWG web site, especially when it comes to recommending people use the remote service for problem resolution, is that the W3C has no control over the remote location. As we've seen with the recent conversion of HTML5 to a "living standard" in the WhatWG, you never know what you're going to get at the WhatWG on a day to day basis. The irregular, erratic nature of the WhatWG documents will only undermine confidence in HTML5.
Details:
Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to
the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the
WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such
differences generate confusion.
Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have way for people
to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not
identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate
confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec.
Correct the reference labeled "CVSWeb interface with side-by-side diffs". It
seems to be pointing to a directory, rather than a specific document with side
by side differences.
Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which
again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C.
Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent,
not useful for those accessing the W3C documents.
Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is
a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have discussion about the "convergence"
between the two groups embedded in a tech spec.
If desired, add an acknowledgement to the WhatWG in the acknowledgement section.
Impact
Positive Effects
The changes will tighten the document focus, and ensure that feedback and reviews are specific to the W3C document. Considering that the W3C HTML WG is on a tight deadline for LC for HTML5, it is doubly essential to tighten the focus for the document, and ensure no confusion among reviewers.
Negative Effects
some time to make the edits
[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/NO-ISSUE-151