[Bug 11168] Remove WhatWG and html5.org references in status section of document

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11168

--- Comment #5 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-10-31 23:52:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to
> > the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the
> > WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such
> > differences generate confusion.
> 
> The W3C version only includes the final .html files, as far as I can tell, not
> the source file used to generate them.  In the spirit of openness, it's better
> to provide pointers to all material used to create the spec, not just the final
> product.  Also, one time I suggested a change (bug 10331) and Ian said he
> wasn't willing to do it, but was willing to accept a patch.  Writing a patch
> that he can accept is only possible using the source file.
> 

A section in the HTML WG front page can link to additional sources, including
the WhatWG material. It doesn't need to be in the HTML5 specification.

Consider this: the people most likely to want the original source are people
who already know where the original source material is. 

A lot of the people accessing HTML5 now, are new authors, web developers, and
others, who, by accessing WhatWG material, which differs from the W3C material,
are going to end up confused about what is, or is not, HTML5. 

> > Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have  way for people
> > to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not
> > identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate
> > confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec.
> 
> On the other hand, the diffs of the source files are typically easier to read,
> since the scripts used to generate the final HTML pages add a bunch of noise. 
> There are probably some examples where the source diffs are much easier to
> read, although I didn't look.
>

The fact that the material is different must take precedence, has to take
precedence over the appearance of the material.

> > Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which
> > again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C. 
> 
> There is no W3C policy or guideline that I know of that suggests it's a bad
> idea to have informative content in drafts referencing sites outside of the
> W3C's control.  This is not a reason by itself to remove anything.  Of course,
> possibly-unstable links in the final Recommendation could be problematic, but
> we're nowhere near that point -- the link can just be removed from the next
> draft if it breaks.
> 

And there's no W3C policy or guideline that recommends such an action, either.
So this isn't a reason to keep the material.

Now is the time when we need to seriously start cleaning up the spec. The group
is attempting to get to Last Call. It can't afford to continue putting things
off to "later".

> > Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent,
> > not useful for those accessing the W3C documents. 
> 
> As noted, this contains the source files, so it is pertinent.  Plus, some
> people (like me) are familiar with Subversion but not CVS, so would prefer
> Subversion if given the choice.
>

Again, I find it likely you already know where the subversion source is, and
the HTML WG can put the material in a "additional resources" section, or some
such thing.

> > Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is
> > a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have the "convergence"
> > between the two groups embedded in a tech spec.
> 
> To the contrary, omitting mention of the WHATWG would be deceptive.  The fact
> that HTML5 is the joint product of two different organizations is of
> considerable importance to anyone who wants to contribute to the spec.  Changes
> to the spec do occur based on discussions in the WHATWG, and anyone who wants
> to keep on top of the spec should at least be aware of that fact, even if they
> don't actually want to subscribe to the whatwg list or join its IRC channel
> (which they might).

Actually, the WhatWG no longer supports HTML5. As we've been told, WhatWG
supports a HTML(n), where n is equal to infinity. 

And I'm not sure that there was ever a formal "joint" agreement. The membership
said to use the WhatWG effort as a beginning baseline, WhatWG agreed, and at
that point in time, also agreed to the W3C patent policy.

Since that time, as we've been told several times, it doesn't matter what
happens in WhatWG space, all that matters is what's in the W3C.


> 
> The W3C's copy of HTML5 is independent and should not depend on or normatively
> reference the WHATWG version.  However, to pretend that the WHATWG doesn't
> exist is a disservice to the readers of the W3C spec.  While the existence of
> two spec versions undoubtedly creates confusion, that confusion will only be
> amplified if they don't acknowledge each other's existence -- given that they
> do both exist regardless of what the W3C version says.

I'm not saying to remove all references to WhatWG. I think a paragraph
acknowledging how beholden the W3C is to the WhatWG could be placed in the ack
section. We don't really need to have WhatWG sprinkled liberally throughout the
spec, like chocolate chips in a cookie.

-- 
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 Sunday, 31 October 2010 23:52:45 UTC