Re: W3C/WHATWG overlap going forward

On 12/01/2014 10:01 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 14:38, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>
>     For that matter, do you expect it to contain the hgroup element and
>     outline algorithm which was previously intentionally removed from
>     the W3C recommendation?  Or the ping attribute that was initially
>     implemented by Firefox and then turned off by default?  Or the
>     Microdata API which was initially implemented in Chrome (actually,
>     webkit at the time) and subsequently removed?  Or ...
>
>
> all good questions :-)
>
> my initial thoughts were to only include those features that are
> implemented or likely to be implemented.
>
> for hgroup the UA implementation requirements are still there, as they
> are for other obsolete elements.
>
> for the outline algorithm it was not removed, as the algorithm itself
> has no requirements that it must be implemented in a conforming html5 UA
>
> for the ping attribute; if looks like implementations are happening and
> it would be useful for developers  to know the details it can be raised
> for discussion.
>
> for the Microdata API; as for the ping attribute.

I am not aware of any progress since the ping attribute and Microdata 
API were (effectively) removed from the implementations I cited.

> Am I right in thinking that having a mechanical copy of the whatwg spec
> will encounter the same barriers to it being reference-able as the
> whatwg spec itself? That a referenced spec can only contain content that
> is agreed upon by the html working group/w3c even if those parts that
> are disagreed with are not referenced directly?

As you are aware, there is much work going on in a number of venues with 
the goal of enabling direct referencing of work produced collaboratively 
with others.  Two such examples:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0004.html
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2014/11/20/WHATWG-W3C-Collaboration

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with the part of the question that you will 
need to address: does it make sense for a spec (spun off or originally 
created) to reference other specs that disagree with each other?

The answer may depend on the spec in question.  An example of a spec 
where that may not be a big deal:

http://w3c.github.io/elements-of-html/

> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 15:56:51 UTC