[Bug 8833] Please allow the title of the spec currently known as "HTML5" to be changed to an accurate title.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8833


Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|NEEDSINFO                   |




--- Comment #9 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>  2010-04-21 05:54:16 ---
> > 
> > I think that's enough reasons to get the problem fixed.
> > 
> 
> Survey that led to the decision: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/
> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
> 
> Note that the survey results include multiple mentions of XHTML, and a
> suggestion from you personally to name the spec (x)html5.
> 
> The WG was also aware at the time that the proposed draft included DOM APIs.
> 
> 1) The survey results include mention of "JavaScript". 
> 
> 2) The abstract of the proposed draft said at the time, "This specification
> introduces features to HTML and the DOM that ease the authoring of Web-based
> applications." The status section said: "This specification is intended to
> replace (be the new version of) what was previously the HTML4, XHTML 1.x, and
> DOM2 HTML specifications." It would be impossible for anyone who even briefly
> looked at the draft to miss these notes. (Reference:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070122104622/http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
> )
> 
> 3) Emails on the list prior to the survey mentioned the DOM:

Stop playing games, you know very well that the W3C wanted the spec to just be
HTML5 and nothing else, therefore the HTML WG were not openly told about
XHTML5, DOM5 etc, the W3C didn't accept these technologies being in the same
spec until later. And as I've said before, the survey was: "Shall
the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?". Well, no one
is disputing that, the W3C's next-generation of HTML has been named "HTML 5",
the issue is "what can the spec be called?" as the spec is not the "W3C's
next-generation HTML specification", it includes HTML5, XHTML5, DOM5 etc.

I have been pleading with the W3C to allow a XHTML language from the spec to
replace XHTML2 and become the new and only version of XHTML. Don't try and
pretend that XHTML5 was always accepted by the W3C and openly discussed by the
HTML WG. Don't try and rewrite history, I know how things have happened.

> 
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=Apr&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=May&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
> 
> It seems pretty clear to me that all the information you cite above was known
> at the time of the survey and was in no way withheld. The Working Group simply
> disagreed with you, and made its decision.

You are not being honest at all Maciej Stachowiak, stop playing games. You know
very well that it was a mistake. The group were not told until 2009 that the
spec was both HTML and XHTML. I know more about this issue than almost anyone
else, I've been pleading with the W3C to fix the issue, don't try and tell me
things are not this way, don't insult me. There was no way that the group could
come up with a title for the spec when the group was not told what the spec
included. There was no way that the title issue could have been resolved at the
time when the W3C said they had another group developing all the XHTML specs
with a spec and group name called "XHTML2".

You know all of this very well, DO NOT waste anymore of my time or the groups
time. Stop being deceitful, this has to stop. If you are not willing to fix
this problem, then leave it for the other chairs to fix. Do not interfere and
prevent the problem from being fixed please.

I politely requested that you not be involved with this issue due to the
conflict with interest. Why have you gone against that and interferred with
this again? You should have left this for the other chairs to deal with.

Even if what you have said above was true, it would still be irrelevant. There
is a problem with the spec and it must be fixed. The fact that we may have had
a survey, or ten surveys does not mean there isn't a problem that needs to be
fixed Mr Stachowiak.

You and Ian created this problem by calling the spec HTML5 when you knew it
wasn't HTML5, that was either stupid or deceitful. It wouldn't be called HTML5
now if you hadn't called it HTML5 before bringing it too the W3C. You and Ian
have continued to prevent this problem from being fixed (which may have been
unintentional in Ian's case), you and Ian have refused to accept that there is
a problem no matter how many times people point it out. In 2009, someone
pointed out there was a problem, YOU did everything you could to make sure the
problem didn't get resolved, you made such a fuss about it your comments even
made it on to the "LastWeekinHTML5" Blog. This is why I politely asked that you
not have anything to do with this issue from now on. You and Ian stand to gain
from this problem not being fixed which is why you have prevented the problem
from being fixed. As I have said, there is a conflict of interest! Do not
interfere anymore! I have spent three years trying to fix this issue. I will
not stop now just because You, Ian, the WHATWG, Apple inc, Google etc stand to
gain from this problem not being fixed. Understand?!

This is a technical problem that needs to be fixed. Stop playing games. Either
you help fix the problem, or you leave it for myself and the other chairs to
fix. I will not have my time wasted and the web damaged just because you or
your company wants to benefit from a mistake that the WHATWG originally
created.

Thank You
Dean Edridge

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 05:54:19 UTC