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

On 06/26/2010 12:29 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

You misinterpret the third option, which I will repeat here:

> (3) that the differences listed in the WHATWG draft be updated in two ways:
> (a) to describe why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this
> particular case
> (b) to modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the
> reasons given in Lachlan's proposal

This is referring to the following description of the difference:

> A politically-incorrect example regarding plugins is not present in
> the W3C version due to the W3C HTML working group not wanting the
> examples to be quite so brutally honest, as documented in this working
> group decision from June 2010.

This text does not describe either why the WHATWG felt it necessary to 
diverge in this particular case, nor does it accurately reflect the 
rationale as present in Lachlan's proposal.

> 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.)

This is not a fourth option.  This is an example of text that could be 
used to partially address 3a.

> 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?

I will confirm that appeal of a chair's decision, per 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals, is 
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.

The following changes were made:

http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004269.html
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004270.html

These changes were made in response to the following request:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html

Which in turn refers to the following proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html

Lachlan's proposal clearly states that the text provided is to be used 
as a replacment.

My subsequent request is very specific: either apply Lachlan's change in 
a way that does not cause the documents to diverge, present new 
information to cause the decision to reopen, or document the reason why 
the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this particular case, and to 
modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the reasons 
given in Lachlan's proposal.

As you point out, there is a fourth option: appeal the chair's decision.

I make this request to the entire set of WHATWG members:

http://www.whatwg.org/charter#member

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 11:05:40 UTC