RE: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

I agree most (if not all) of your points.  With those in mind, I have no
issue with using the WHATWG work as a starting point, from which we will
have the opportunity to discuss it in detail.


On Tue, April 10, 2007 10:41 am, David Dailey wrote:
> 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
> .

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 18:03:54 UTC