W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:40:11 +0100
Message-ID: <n2m-g.mgpo23ltfr2slsh7a8c4ai78calr2rroee@4ax.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote:

>> HTML 5 is a monicker used to refer to WA1 + Web Forms 2.
>
>  And quite imprecise. "HTML" is a markup language created and
>  maintained by the W3C, and version 5 is currently not
>  planned.

W3C came into existence many years after TBL created HTML, and years
after the first publication of a specification called HTML. W3C do not
hold a copyright on the phrase HTML, ergo they cannot claim ownership of
a language baring that name or claim to being the "maintainer", anyone
can claim same.

>> The WhatWG was formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera because they were
>> dissatisfied with the way W3C wanted to develop the principle markup
>> language for the web. The rebel initiative gathered so much support that
>
>  Indeed. However, that has no relevance to actual standardization
>  processes which Apple, Mozilla and Opera already /are/ a part of. We
>  have in the past gotten into trouble with ad-hoc additions to
>  browsers.

We also got into trouble because of the misdirection of W3C (IMO), which
is what resulted in the rebel initiative. Furthermore implementing the
relatively stable parts of HTML 5 does not classify as "ad-hoc
additions" if by that you mean to equate it to the browser war days when
competing elements were implemented.

>> W3C was urged to consider embracing it. W3C restarted the HTML WG for
>> this purpose, see the "New HTML WG at W3C" post dd April 11th 2007 to
>> this list.
>
>  Have you read the charter? I would like to refer you to the
>  following:
>
>   "The mission of the HTML Working Group ... is to continue the
>    evolution of HTML"
>
>  and
>
>   "The HTML Working Group will actively pursue convergence
>    with WHATWG"
>
>  There is, so far and to my knowledge, no decision made as to
>  use the WHATWG WA1 as the base for a future, incremental,
>  revision of HTML - indeed 'HTML 4.1' might be a better goal
>  for now, and well within the charter.

You seem to bestow an authority on W3C that I do not share. As I see it
W3C is at risk of becoming irrelevant to the future of the principle
markup language of the web, or they adopt the WhatWG work.

>  Therefore it is jumping the gun to suggest that browsers WILL
>  or SHOULD implement WA1.

That indeed remains to be seen. What does strike me as a reasonable
conclusion is that XHTML2 has virtually no chance of becoming useful on
the web, for now that leaves HTML 5 as the other way forward.

>  Once the new WG has, with the assistance of the community
>  /at large/ and including work already done by the WHATWG, produced
>  a draft document, then reference
>  implementations should be created.

One of the problems is that W3C work is not open to "the community at
large", the main work is conducted in closed committees. "Members" drive
the process, and becoming a member is effectively restricted to large
financially capable organizations. The "community at large" only has a
peripheral role to play in the process.

In contrast the WhatWG work has been remarkably open, not only can
anyone participate in the process, what seems to matter are strength of
argument and pragmatism.

As to when it is appropriate to begin implementation, this is formalized
in the W3C process, not so within the WhatWG. The preliminary
implementations that exist are part of browsers who's manufacturers are
active participants in the WhatWG development process, as such it seems
reasonable to assume that they are fully aware which parts are at risk
of change, and that they accept any remaining risk.

-- 
Spartanicus
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 08:40:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:09 GMT