W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2012

Re: example: the HTML WG process is not working

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:50:09 -0400
Message-ID: <4F731711.7050603@w3.org>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 3/28/2012 9:24 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Well if you think it is a healthy state of affairs that important 
> stakeholders (ie various high profile implementor employees) don't 
> participate in the working group because they consider it to be a 
> joke, and publically state as much on a regular basis, then full steam 
> ahead.

No I don't think that is at all healthy.

>
> The divergence between HTML5 and the HTML living standard has little 
> to do with snapshot versus continuous updates it has everything to do 
> with the perception of who's hands the development of HTML is in.
>
> As a working group member all I can do is raise issues when i see 
> them, the current non participation behvaiour of some folk works to my 
> benefit in terms of getting the changes I want to see accepted, but 
> the resulting divergence hurts developers and users.

Yes, I agree that more participation is better.  I work on it every day.

>
> I would rather have robust debate about changes than acceptance trough 
> non participation and forking, but that would involve all parties 
> acting in good faith.

I would love to have a robust debate about changes.  That is why I asked 
what you were trying to accomplish with the email.

At one level, your email merely informed me and Philippe about some 
facts that we are already aware.

I didn't see any proposal for changes.

At a broader level, the AB is looking at broader changes in our process, 
but I'm not sure if that is the type of change you are proposing.

>
>
> regards
> Stevef
>
> On 28 March 2012 14:10, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> 
> wrote:
>
>     On 3/28/2012 8:56 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>     Hi Jeff,
>>     this is an example of a bug that was escalated as per the HTML WG
>>     process that went rough the process and was deemed as having
>>     consensus in the working group not because there is consensus,
>>     but because people who may disagree with the change did not
>>     participate.
>
>     Not sure what to do with this observation.  Our specs are always a
>     consensus of those that participate.  If some choose not to
>     participate then the spec will not reflect their views.
>
>
>>
>>     The editor obviously disagreed as he rejected the bug, but did
>>     not enter into any further discussion, his recent remarks on IRC
>>     strongly suggest he thinks its a bad idea.
>>     If the process is designed to standardise HTML then its not
>>     working, as I point out, when the editor disagrees with a change
>>     he simply creates another fork between the specs or to put it
>>     another way if the working group does not accept what the editor
>>     has in the spec another fork is created.
>
>     Not sure what to do with this observation, either.  The process is
>     for the Chairs to determine the consensus of the Working Group
>     even if the editor disagrees.  Sounds like that is what is
>     happening.  What are the alternatives?  The editor is entitled to
>     his opinion if he disagrees.  And the WG is entitled to their
>     opinion if they disagree with the editor.
>
>     In terms of the divergence of the specs, I think it is a success
>     story that we have maintained alignment as long as we have.  And I
>     agree it would be highly desirable to continue to maintain
>     alignment for HTML 5, as well as HTML.next.  But it is
>     mathematically impossible for us to freeze a REC level HTML 5 and
>     expect that to be in perfect alignment with a changing WHAT WG LS.
>
>
>>
>>     We appear to have gone from a state where there was active
>>     participation to a state where there is passive denial of the
>>     legitimacy of the process resulting in a consensual non-consensus.
>>
>>     none of which can be described with a straight face as a working
>>     process.
>>
>>     regards
>>     stevef
>>
>>     On 28 March 2012 13:39, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>>     <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Steve,
>>
>>         I apologize, but I don't know what this is.
>>
>>         Is this:
>>
>>         1. fyi, about timelines of issues?
>>         2. An escalation of the Chairs for not dealing with this
>>         issue per the HTML 5 WG process?
>>         3. An observation that the finalized HTML 5 spec as it moves
>>         forward (LC--> CR --> REC) will diverge from a continually
>>         updated WHAT WG Living Standard (with presumably re-syncing
>>         as we move to HTML.next)?
>>         4. Something else?
>>
>>         Thanks.
>>
>>         Jeff
>>
>>
>>         On 3/28/2012 8:19 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>         I want to clarify one point that I implied by this statement
>>>
>>>         "I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C
>>>         HTML5 but not to the WHAT WG, resulting in further
>>>         divergence between the 2 specs and further dilution of
>>>         standardized authoring advice (in this case)."
>>>
>>>         The active involvement of people, such as the editor in the
>>>         HTML WG process, does not necessarily result in
>>>         standardization of HTML being advanced. If the editor does
>>>         not agree with a change to HTML decided by the working group
>>>         its only applied to the W3C HTML5 spec [1].
>>>
>>>         [1]
>>>         http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5?
>>>
>>>         regards
>>>         Stevef
>>>
>>>         On 28 March 2012 11:35, Steve Faulkner
>>>         <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>             Timeline of an issue: this is an example of a
>>>             re-ocurring pattern [1]
>>>             Over a  5 month period, feedback and input was called
>>>             for, a detailed proposal was provided - total silence
>>>             ensued, after the process is complete the editor
>>>             comments on IRC.
>>>             I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C
>>>             HTML5 but not to the WHAT WG, resulting in further
>>>             divergence between the 2 specs and further dilution of
>>>             standardized authoring advice (in this case).
>>>
>>>             Timeline of an issue:
>>>
>>>             **Bug 14937*
>>>             <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937>
>>>             -Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple
>>>             images opened: 2011-11-25 21:20:52 UTC
>>>
>>>             * editor rejects
>>>             https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1
>>>             <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1%20>2011-12-07
>>>             23:01:38 UTC
>>>
>>>                 Status: Rejected
>>>                 Change Description: no spec change
>>>                 Rationale: This isn't an antipattern. It is a best
>>>                 practice. If current ATs
>>>                 don't make it accessible, then I recommend
>>>                 approaching AT vendors and
>>>                 explaining to them that they're not properly
>>>                 exposing HTML semantics.
>>>
>>>             * feedback provided on rejection:
>>>             https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c2
>>>
>>>             * No further response from editor
>>>
>>>             * escalated to issue: Issue 190
>>>             <https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190>
>>>             2011-12-08 10:27:42 UTC
>>>
>>>             * I submit a proposal
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions>:
>>>             January 18th, 2012.
>>>
>>>             * Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or
>>>             Counter-Proposals
>>>             <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0127.html>
>>>             Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:42:45
>>>
>>>             * NO counter proposals or feedback on  proposal
>>>
>>>             * CfC: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example by Amicable
>>>             Resolution
>>>             <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0463.html>issued
>>>             Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:23:27
>>>
>>>                 As we have received no counter-proposals or
>>>                 alternate proposals, the
>>>                 chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the
>>>                 proposal that we do have.
>>>
>>>                 If no objections are raised to this call by March
>>>                 7th 2012, we will
>>>                 direct the editor to make the proposed change. If
>>>                 anybody would like to
>>>                 raise an objection during this time, we strongly
>>>                 encourage them to
>>>                 accompany their objection with a concrete and
>>>                 complete change proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>             * No responses to CFC
>>>
>>>             * Chairs issue: Working Group Decision:Close ISSUE-190
>>>             coding-example by Amicable Resolution
>>>             <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0731.html>Mon,
>>>             26 Mar 2012
>>>
>>>             Commenst by editor on IRC: 2012-03-28 (it appears that
>>>             this is the first time the editor has looked at the
>>>             proposal)
>>>
>>>              1. #
>>>                 <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-15>
>>>                 [00:16] <Hixie>
>>>                 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions#Details
>>>
>>>              2. #
>>>                 <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-16>
>>>                 [00:16] <Hixie> really?
>>>              3. #
>>>                 <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-17>
>>>                 [00:17] <Hixie> we're actually going to put an
>>>                 example in the spec _encouraging_ nested figures?
>>>
>>>
>>>             [1]
>>>
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-192
>>>                 title-attribute by Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0558.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-188:
>>>                 generic-track-format by Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0557.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-187
>>>                 validity-stability by Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0556.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-182
>>>                 footnote-recommendation by Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0555.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-179 av_param by
>>>                 Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0554.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>               * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-170
>>>                 rel-uri-valid by Amicable Resolution
>>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0553.html>
>>>                 /(Tuesday, 20 March)/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>             with regards
>>>
>>>             Steve Faulkner
>>>             Technical Director - TPG
>>>
>>>             www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
>>>             www.HTML5accessibility.com
>>>             <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
>>>             www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
>>>             <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
>>>             HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives
>>>             - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>>>             <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
>>>             Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>>>             www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>>>             <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     with regards
>>
>>     Steve Faulkner
>>     Technical Director - TPG
>>
>>     www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
>>     www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
>>     www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
>>     HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
>>     dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>>     <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
>>     Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>>     www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>>     <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | 
> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | 
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - 
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - 
> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 13:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:48 GMT