- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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. -Matt 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 > http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/copyright/disclaimer.htm .
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 18:03:54 UTC