Re: Request for the WHATWG draft to converge with the W3C draft

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 08:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > 
> > > The short form is that a proposal made by Lachlan Hunt was adopted 
> > > by the W3C WG based on a Call for Consensus, and this resulted in a 
> > > widening of the divergence between the WHATWG and W3C drafts.
> > 
> > Could you explain what is wrong with the example in the WHATWG draft 
> > that you would like removed?
> 
> Lachlan's change proposal adequately described what was wrong with the 
> example.

Here is Lachlan's rationale:

| The current spec providedes an unrealistic example designed to 
| discourage the use of plugins due to their proprietary nature.  While 
| encouraging the use of vendor-neutral technologies over proprietary 
| technologies is a noble goal, the example would better serve web 
| developers by demonstrating how plugins can be used without being 
| detrimental to those without the plugin installed.
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html

This was written in the context of a section of the spec having a single 
example showing how to use <param>. In the WHATWG spec, that section now 
has two examples. It has one that demonstrates "how plugins can be used 
without being detrimental to those without the plugin installed", as 
Lachlan suggests. It also has one "encouraging the use of vendor-neutral 
technologies over proprietary technologies", which Lachlan describes as a 
noble goal. This as far as I can tell means that the rationale Lachlan 
describes simple does not apply to the current text in the WHATWG spec.

Therefore the rationale is not valid for what you are asking. This is 
unsurprising, since it was written by someone who was not attempting to 
apply it to the purpose to which you are applying it.

What is _your_ rationale for asking for this example to be removed?


> I provided three options, and listed my order of preference.

I explained why the first option is not currently being followed. For the 
second option, I presented all the information of which I was aware, and 
explained that I had no interest in consuming HTML WG time on this issue. 
For the third option, I explained that what you were requesting was 
already present in the specification, and that your requested modification 
would not be appropriate. I have expanded on my response to the first 
point above, and to the third point below.

I also provided a fourth option, which I quote here:

| Since this is only an example, I really don't mind if the W3C version 
| diverges on this issue if the HTML working group feels it's especially 
| important an issue, which is why I did not object in the HTML WG beyond 
| rejecting the bug. (It would be like objecting over the differences in 
| the style sheets, which are also different.) However, if there is no 
| good technical reason to remove the example, and if objecting to the 
| decision would provide a way for the specifications to merge by having 
| the example added back to the W3C version, I would be happy to do so. 
| Please let me know if that is an option.

You did not comment on this, so let me more direct: is this an option?


> If the example is to be retained, and this is done without presenting 
> any new information that would merit reopening the decision, then my 
> request is that the differences indicated why the WHATWG felt it 
> necessary to diverge, and that the description reflect the rationale 
> provided by Lachlan.

The rationale provided by Lachlan is clearly not the real reason, since 
the rationale provided by Lachlan does not apply to the current state of 
the WHATWG spec. Stating that reason would therefore be absurd. The real 
reason is that certain members of the HTML WG wouldn't agree to having an 
example that was critical of plugins. That's the reason that is described 
in the spec today. If you do not believe that to be the real reason, then 
I challenge you to convince the HTML WG to accept having _both_ examples 
in the HTML WG spec, since having both examples satisfies Lachlan's 
rationale better than having just the one currently in the HTML WG spec.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 04:29:56 UTC