W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: HTML WG last call comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:27:08 -0500
To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1098289628.14529.186.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 10:41, Steven Pemberton wrote:
> > Thanks  for your earlier response to me.  I took the liberty of  
> > forwarding to the TAGs member-only list [1].
> >
> > You indicated the HTML-WGs need to see the proposed wording in context.  
> > Subsequento our F2F, the relevant section has been updated in our  
> > current editors draft and is available at [2] .
> >
> > We believe that the changes are responsive to HTML-WGs comment [3] and  
> > we would like to know, ASAP , whether the HTML-WG agrees.
> 
> I am afraid not. They responded very strongly that it is not acceptable to  
> recommend a spec that has not reached consensus within W3C.

How unfortunate.

I wonder... is the HTML WG aware of the extent
to which The Director overrulled oustanding dissent in the
history of the development of HTML? HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.0
were developed before W3C constrained itself to formally
address dissent from outside Working Group, or even to
record dissent on WG decisions. I can tell you,
as the chair of the WG at that time, that we routinely
dismissed dissenting comments without so much as a reply.
In WG meetings, I routinely closed issues over the objection
of a single member; The Director implicitly endorsed
all this.

So I gather the HTML WG considers it not acceptable
to recommend HTML 3.2 nor HTML 4.0, since they reached
W3C Recommendation status without consensus in the
community.

XLink started in a similar climate as HTML 4.0. I think
W3C put more energy and policies regarding wider consensus as
XLink developed, and by the time XLink became a Recommendation,
the notion of formal objections was established, but
still relatively new. Yes, there was outstanding dissent
on XLink when it became a W3C Recommendation. That does
not make it any less a W3C Recommendation.

In sum, XLink is every bit as much a W3C Recommendation
as HTML is.


>  They object in  
> particular to the wording "[XLink] is an appropriate specification" and  
> "Designers of XML-based formats should consider using XLink".
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Steven Pemberton
> On behalf of the HTML WG
> 
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Stuart Williams
> > On behalf of W3C TAG
> > --
> > [1]  
> > http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396D55@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#xml-links
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/mid/opse3b6givsmjzpq@viao-1.lan
> >
> > Steven Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> (Apologies for lateness, due to laptop meltdown and concomitant backlog)
> >>
> >> The HTML WG has one comment on the architecture last call:
> >>
> >> "XLink is an appropriate specification for representing links in  
> >> hypertext  XML applications."
> >>
> >> We demur. XLink was issued without reaching consensus, and did not  
> >> follow  due W3C process. This makes it an inappropriate specification  
> >> for  underpinning the Web architecture until such time as consensus has  
> >> been  achieved.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Steven Pemberton
> >> For the HTML WG
> >>
> >
> >
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 16:26:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT