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

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:57:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4E3F1873.8060903@jumis.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 8/5/2011 7:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
>> does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? 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.
> This is exactly _why_ we should reference the WHATWG copy rather than the
> W3C one. The W3C one has a growing list of intentional errors.
I prefer to think of them as breaks in consensus. The WHATWG, more than 
the W3C, is reflective
of browser vendors actually carry out in their code. There is still room 
for convergence in these
various forks as well as deference.

They're not "unforced" errors either. Though items may be contradictory 
or incomplete,
it's certainly the case that the parties at conflict have legitimate 
concerns that need resolution.

They're not forcing errors into your editing-process at random, nor as 

> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> I don't see that in any of the HTML last call documents,  like
>>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/#references
> The only reason that refers to the W3C copy of HTML and not the WHATWG
> copy is that the WHATWG copy includes canvas in its entirety already, so
> the reference would just be confusing. The only reason there's a reference
> there in the first place is because the W3C copy is randomly split into
> two unlike the WHATWG version.

I don't think it's fair to call it "random", nor do I find it accurate 
to label
either document as sprouting "intentional errors".

While your ideal of HTML technologies may be strong from the perspective
of browser vendors, there are many other perspectives in the group.

Mine is one of them. Having Canvas 2d as its own specification has 
definite benefits;
your statement that the canvas spec is "randomly" split is incorrect. 
There are
parties that benefit from that split, and those benefits are separate 
from your larger goals.

Note that you see a final convergence, all vendors supporting a large 
hypertext format;
many app vendors are more concerned about the next ten years, and about 
which APIs
work for them. That's a fundamentally different view.

I see the tens to hundreds of millions that software vendors invest into 
supporting HTML-related
specifications and think it's wonderful. For the smaller vendors, the 
sole support SVG, or Canvas, or
another W3C format, that's a wonderful thing too.

It's not random, that you receive push-back, or W3C members telling you 
"no", that copy won't do.
Taking it from the other extreme: they are not intentionally sabotaging 
your work, either.

Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 22:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:34 UTC