W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 03:17:35 -0400
Message-ID: <5400290F.1090402@w3.org>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
CC: public-w3process@w3.org, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

Philippe, Chris, and others have already addressed your questions, but I 
wanted to emphasize a few other points below.


On 8/28/2014 7:50 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 14:25 -0400, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> I'm also interested in the rationale here.
> The rational is the same as Encoding, or DOM: W3C seeks clear
> Royalty-Free licensing commitments from as many key stakeholders as we
> can bring together, as well as stable content for normative references
> (a consideration by the Director [1] as part of the Recommendation
> Track).
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references
>> Those are:
>> 1. Developer/implementer confusion - which is authoritative? (telling
>> you right now most implementers work from the WHATWG version, go ask
>> them - and deal with it!).
> As Dan mentioned in his message, the intention is to keep the W3C
> version in sync with the WHATWG version of the URL spec, so the end
> result shouldn't make a difference if we're successful. The status of
> the document mentions as well: "intent of keeping the differences from
> the original to a strict minimum, and only through subsetting (only
> things that are not implemented were removed for this publication)".
>> 2. (justified and demonstrable) accusations of plagiarism.
> The document recognize the work of the WHATWG editor (Anne in this case)
> and of the WHATWG itself. We made efforts to work with Anne to avoid
> plagiarism, giving proper credits, and make sure we can work together.
>> 3. W3C copy of specs not being maintained, and falling out of date
>> (despite continuous assurances that this would not happen).
> I agree that the level of maintenance of W3C specifications varies.
> While we strive to avoid specifications falling out of date, it does
> unfortunately happen because of various factors (lack of interest or
> time individuals being one of them). In addition to the improvement the
> publication workflow pipeline, we've been working separately on a
> proposal to allow the maintenance of orphaned specifications with a
> lightweight approach that will contribute on this front, and giving an
> opportunity to the Web community at large to help. I don't know if we
> settle on a timeline for that one yet.

Marcos, I would find it very helpful if you could point out which specs 
you believe are most critically out of date.  Then we can ask the WG to 
rev those specs.

>> 4. Extreme polarization in the web community (i.e., this is pissing a
>> lot of community members off) to the point that they are refusing to
>> engage with the W3C. I'm also close to this point, and lots of people
>> in the implementer community feel this way.
> We'd like the Web community to focus on moving the Open Web Platform
> forward through all means possible and it's regrettable that some would
> feel offended here. Again, Dan will work with Anne on improving the URL
> specification and I'd like to see this as an opportunity to help Anne
> with the specification rather than hinder his work. The TAG is also
> committed to work that way [2].
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2014/07/22-f2f-minutes.html#url
>> The WHATWG needs to be treated as a reputable and authoritative
>> standards organization by the W3C (as it does with the IETF and other
>> consortia).
>> W3C specifications need to be able to cite WHATWG specs without fear
>> of repercussions - or having to enter into some process fight.
>> There should be no reason for the W3C to copy/paste WHATWG
>> specifications. The WHATWG already said they are happy to use the
>> W3C's CG license to provide royalty free specs to people.
> As Jeff Jaffe mentioned recently in "Creating an Agile Web Standards
> Ecosystem" [3], W3C and WHATWG have different approaches and, while we
> agree that Web technology is "Living", we reserve the name “Standard”
> for specifications that are stable (among others). Chris addressed that
> point as well in his response. Despite this difference, we strive to
> work together and improve the Web. Suggestions to improve the
> collaboration are always welcome and I know that you're helping on
> trying to make W3C better as well. As Chris mentioned, more work is
> needed to make the W3C a much healthier organization

I also want to emphasize that we have the greatest respect for the 
technical work being done by Anne, Hixie, and others at the WHATWG. 
There is no desire to provide any slights.  I truly feel bad that it is 
interpreted that way.

You will not see the W3C attacking or disrespecting the WHATWG in any way.

> [3] http://www.webat25.org/news/jeff-jaffe-web25-w3c20-part4
> Philippe
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 07:17:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC