RE: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

David Dailey said:
> 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."

Ian said:
| If the HTML WG and the WHATWG don't publish the same
| specification, then I, on behalf of the WHATWG, will
| ensure that the two specifications remain consistent and
| compatible, by ensuring that the WHATWG specification
| is always a strict superset or more detailed version of
| the HTML WG spec. [1]

So, even if the specs diverge, a browser supporting WHATWG's HTML 5 will
support W3C's HTML 5.  WHATWG, it seems, is aiming to make a very
universal specification that accounts for more than just "what WHATWG
wants."  The spec is more about "accounting for what's going on already"
and "how can we improve it."  W3C's HTML 5 is certainly part of the
"what's going on already."

> 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)

As far as integration of W3C ideas (or wherever else they originate) into
WHATWG's spec, Ian does it.  He's actively participating on this list.  I
imagine if something isn't incorporated into Web Apps 1 it is because
there hasn't been enough time to add it or it wasn't worth adding.


Robert <>

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 19:04:22 UTC