W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Preparing to launch the Forms Task Force ...

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:07:41 +0900
Message-ID: <45F80FBD.4090502@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org
Ian, thanks for your clarification.

Asbjørn Ulsberg schreef:
>> The WHATWG isn't going to stop
>
> I'm not saying it should, but I do wonder how the WHAT WG and the HTML 
> WG can cooperate on developing specifications when the discussions are 
> happening on two separate mailing lists. It is of course possible to 
> cross-mail to both lists, but everybody knows how that works out in 
> practice (my experience: it's a mess).
>
> Having one mailing list, at least only one "normative", would help a 
> lot. Perhaps the WHAT WG list could be used to flesh out ideas while 
> the HTML WG list could be used to present these ideas in a more 
> polished form so they are a step closer to be ready for inclusion in 
> the specification?
>
> There are probably other alternatives as well, but having two mailing 
> lists that should each stand on their own and at the same time have 
> very different people subscribing to them, will make it very difficult 
> to be up to date on the current state of affairs, plus reaching 
> consensus will be very hard.

I am having doubts how this W3C - WHATWG relationship can work properly 
without the WHATWG giving in, even though Ian listed some instances 
where it apparantly has. I think you made a good point that having two 
separate places for discussion being less than ideal, to say the least. 
Plus that all those people on the WHATWG list haven’t signed the patent 
policy. Can the W3C copy a feature in the WHATWG’s spec if the person 
who proposed it didn’t join the W3C HTML WG? It seems to me that any new 
idea proposed on the WHATWG list could potentially be one idea less that 
can make it into the W3C specification, even if it’s really good. The 
person who originally proposed it could file a patent, because he(/she) 
is not bound by the policy. The only thing you could do is to track him 
down and get him to sign the patent policy separately, which seems like 
a lot of trouble. Or am I missing something here?

It also sounds doesn’t sound like an efficient use of Ian’s time if he 
is constantly keeping both specs in sync (although it of course is his 
time to spend), and we would easily get into a situation where every new 
feature introduced in one working group is separately reviewed by the 
other before it is accepted. And what if it’s not… Ian says that he will 
keep the WHATWG spec a strict superset, but what if the WHATWG members 
are against a certain and the W3C members in favour? Say, a <h> element 
for headers within sections, something that never got into the WHATWG 
spec. Does the W3C take precedence? In that case, why is the WHATWG 
still there?

To me it seems that it would be so much easier if the WHATWG handed over 
their entire effort to the W3C, then everyone could work together on 
this instead of getting two (possibly diverging) specifications. I’m 
sure that this does not sound like a happy idea to everyone, especially 
those who have put a lot of time in organising the WHATWG effort, but 
people have shown enthusiasm for the W3C picking this up, now they 
should allow the W3C to really do so and not complicate matters 
unnecessarily, but just move from the WHATWG to the W3C as the location 
for discussion and spec development.

I just ask you, given the W3C HTML working group that is now starting, 
what is the purpose of the WHATWG?

Anyway, I suppose both groups probably have to feel eachother out first, 
and get their priorities straight. But this is my personal view, at this 
moment.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.



Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 15:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:09 GMT