W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:23:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL1nonJAEnt9q0Dy4Z2JnbnMX+==Xbf+XrRdM3QEsj6jJp8PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>>
>> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept).
>
> Agreed, but no one has come up with such need so far.
>
>> > What
>> > does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group?
>>
>> Egos aside, it should not mean anything… one has green headings, the other has blue ones.
>
> In the ideal world, it should not, but the fact that we're having this
> exact discussion indicates there is meaning behind. For example, Ian
> pointed out earlier that "The W3C one has a growing list of intentional
> errors.".

This is unfortunate, but I have experienced the same thing with
Widgets (stuff I knew was wrong but some WG members wanted, even
though it was pointed out to them it would not get implemented or made
no sense). That's what's valuable about the WHATWG spec: it more
closely resembles reality at times... other times, it might not - but
I think the WHATWG (and Ian) is trying to do the right thing here.
It's important to capture and reject such "intentional errors", so I
support what the WHATWG is doing in this case.

>> > There are features
>> > in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group. See
>> >
>> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#how-do-the-whatwg-and-w3c-specifications-differ?
>> >
>> > This list keeps growing.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's appropriate for one Working Group to ditch the work
>> > of an other.
>>
>> Both the W3C and WHATWG have an equal and legitimate authoritative claim over the content of the HTML specification (with real authoritative legitimacy being determined by which version actually gets implemented and by who).
>>
>> It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as to which spec they cite regardless of the reason.
>
> And one of the role of the W3C staff is to ensure proper coordination
> between the various Working Groups at the W3C. I'm pointing out we are
> being inconsistent,

I'm still not sure what the problem is. It seems like the problem is
that some people feel the citing a WHATWG spec is "disrespectful" of
the HTML WG. I think we should get on with making the best possible
technology for our fellow humans and not get so caught up with who is
citing who. At the end of the day, what matters is the Web and more
importantly the people that use it.... though I'm sure the history of
the HTML5 spec is going to make for a great book or movie!

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 16:24:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT