- From: David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:41:35 -0400
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, paul haine <paul@joeblade.com>,HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
At 12:26 PM 4/10/2007, Chris Wilson wrote: >Your co-chairs are responsible for building consensus within the >Working Group. > That having been said, let me express some of my sentiments (applying several disclaimers as appropriate*). a) Having had some time to familiarize myself somewhat (only somewhat) with the contents of WHATWG's draft, it seems like as good a starting point as any. I had originally suggested that we start with HTML4 and add things in from WHATWG on a one-by-one sort of basis, because of the number of folks here who are not familiar with WHATWG's work. All in all, though, I think WHATWG is closer to where we should be than HTML4 so it proves a better starting point. b) WHATWG's origins were based in discontent with the W3C (as per its FAQ). That is a discontent I have no reason to share (being new to this sort of thing), but it does give cause for caution. c) I share a bit of concern with the way that some of it has been presented -- at times it has sounded a bit non-negotiable: sort of like "If W3C doesn't approve it, then there will be two standards -- theirs and ours." d) there are things in the WHATWG proposal that I remain unconvinced of and would likely argue against should those discussions become appropriate. I think line-item discussion must remain possible. e) there are numerous ideas that have surfaced in this group, since its inception, which are not incorporated in WHATWG, and I am unclear of the process by which that harmonization would occur. (again I suppose that is why we have chairs) f) the argument that the WHATWG document is so extensively interconnected that parts of it cannot be considered in isolation has surfaced a couple of times. That seems to be an argument against a document rather than for it to me. g) there are some issues (like innerHTML, setTimeout, SMIL, video, canvas) which would seem to have implications for, or perhaps be charter-constrained by other W3C initiatives. By distancing itself from W3C historically, WHATWG may not have needed, at the time, to abide by whatever proper jurisdictional protocol exists within W3C. If the chairs are cool with this, I have no fuss, since it is all most mysterious to me anyhow. h) I'm still a bit skeptical of some of the "design principles." There have been times that they have been invoked seemingly with a bit more magic than logic, but as I've said "first principles" usually make me nervous -- so this is maybe just a personal quirk of mine. Subject to all of those concerns, I think it is a very good thing -- it moves in most of the directions it seems like it should. It seems consistent with the charter of the WG. It is not as revolutionary in some arenas as I would have hoped, nor as evolutionary in others. I would hate to see discussion on such matters prematurely terminated as a result of its adoption. It is clear that many bright and talented people devoted a huge amount of time and care to the development of this important document. Labeling it "HTML5" would provide a sort of ex post facto certificate of recognition from the W3C, and that would seem quite fitting. Now, can we get back to talking about fun stuff? regards, David Dailey * I don't claim to understand all of it; I'm not particularly well-versed at reading such documents; I don't claim great expertise in HTML -- I use it to markup my thoughts for teaching; I am usually quite willing to contradict myself. For further disclaimers see http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/copyright/disclaimer.htm .
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 17:41:46 UTC