- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:24:49 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On 19/10/2012 09:47 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > A better solution is in my opinion for extension specs to carry their > own weight without relying on branding. This can be accomplished by > simply being careful about what we choose to put in the status section > of the drafts. So for example clearly stating that it's not a HTML WG > draft. And stating that though its published by W3C as a extension to > HTML, it's not actually part of HTML and might never be so. > > That said, I really like the direction that the original proposal in > this thread takes. > > The HTML spec has gotten so big that it carries its own momentum. That > means thar whatever goes into it will be carried by the HTML momentum > rather than its technical strength. > > By making use of extension specs we can instead let the market decide > what makes it and what doesn't. Which I think is a great idea. > > But in order for that idea to work we need to ensure that the language > in the drafts are clear enough that it actually is the technical > contents of the draft that gives it momentum, not association, > misunderstood or otherwise, with the HTML WG. I very much agree with your problem statement, but I have a slight concern with your proposal in the last paragraph above. Having "language in the drafts" that is "clear enough" could be addressed by having a paragraph buried in the SotD stating that this draft is not endorsed, shouldn't be considered as anything other than work in progress, etc. As it happens, we already have such text and it's effectively useless — making it stronger will just make for longer boilerplate to skip. It should be possible for the HTML WG to be associated with extension specs, simply because it should be possible for the HTML WG to produce some (in fact, it wouldn't hurt if that were the default mode of operation). But one way in which we can try to be crystal clear about a spec's status is through its title. I don't necessarily want to bikeshed this to death, but perhaps your concerns could be at least partially addressed through the requirement that extension specs, at least until such a time as they have gathered momentum of their own, do not ever make use of "HTML" or "HTML5" in their title. So you'd get "The <minitel> element" rather than "HTML5 Minitel". This could be further reinforced as "Proposed Extension: The <minitel> element" or some such. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:24:54 UTC