W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Option 3

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:13:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4D78CE88.4000108@intertwingly.net>
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
CC: 'HTML WG Public List' <public-html@w3.org>, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On 03/09/2011 11:29 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Comment (b) regarding Use Case 6: If W3C or the HTML WG ceases
> operations, why do you doubt that you'd be allowed to continue in a
> non-W3C venue? Who will stop you from forking by reference? There is an
> apparent paranoia here about W3C that predates me, and makes it
> difficult to nail down the use cases. If you don't trust W3C to honor
> its licenses, why are we bothering?

Further background on the history here.  Sadly, this is not hypothetical.

In May of 1998[1], the W3C explicitly decided to redirect its efforts 
from HTML to XHTML.  A year and a half later, what was then thought to 
be the final release of HTML was published[2].

After nearly 5 years of stagnation, a group of browser vendors got 
together to pick up where the W3C left off[3].

Two and a half years later, the W3C decided to recharter[4] the HTML WG, 
in parallel with the XHTML2 WG.

In July of 2009, the W3C decided not to renew the charter[5] for XHTML2.

While this may end up with a happy ending this time - I can totally see 
why people are asking for reassurances.  The underlying premise is 
leadership is a consequence of excellence in execution and that if the 
W3C were to allow a fork it would be required to continue to execute if 
it wishes to regain and retain a position of leadership.

I'm not advocating for any particular change; I'm merely sharing some 
background so that you can greater understand where people are coming from.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/future/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
[3] 
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/000005.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#entry-6601
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 13:14:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC