W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2010

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

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:54:26 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nl2WI-0000tp-7v@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #7 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>  2010-02-26 15:54:25 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > 
> > > Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to
> > > name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be
> > > reopened if there is new information:
> > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>
> > > 
> > > Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of
> > > the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?
> > 
> > You know very well that I do, I mentioned it along with a dozen other reasons
> > back in January 2008, I'm still waiting to hear back from the HTML WG or the
> > editor on the issue.
> Could you please cite here the new information you have provided? You can
> either state the new information inline, or provide a link to any previous
> mentions.

Here's my original request to fix the problem that the WHATWG created.
Unfortunately, due to certain people's interference, the HTML WG wasn't able to
have a discussion and come up with a better title back in Jan 2008

> Note that it would have to be information that was not available at
> the time of the original decision.

Whether there's new information or not, the W3C can not continue to publish a
specification that they know has triple meanings to words and other
contradictions. This is a technical error, it is not just a cosmetic issue and
I don't think that we should just leave it broken so corporations like Apple
inc, can benefit from it being wrong.

There is a problem with the spec and it needs to be fixed, and you know it.
Pretending that the problem wasn't there in 2007 wont make the problem

Some of this information was available in 2007, but the information was
withheld from the HTML WG.

The HTML WG were only told that the spec was a replacement for HTML4, so
obviously they thought it would be OK to call it HTML5. However, the HTML WG
now knows that the spec is the next version of HTML, XHTML and the DOM and
other technologies. The HTML WG also now knows that there are two other
technologies within the spec called HTML5, this means we have three
technologies all called HTML5. The spec contains the latest version of XHTML
called XHTML5, so to have a language called XHTML5 inside a spec called HTML5
is silly. Now that the group are aware of these things, it makes sense that the
HTML WG have a discussion and come up with a suitable title.

I think that's enough reasons to get the problem fixed.

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 Friday, 26 February 2010 15:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:12 UTC