Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

Hi Laurens,

On Apr 11, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Laurens Holst wrote:

> Geoffrey Sneddon schreef:
>>> You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the
>>> step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative
>>> ways to move forward.
>> I'm equally interested to hear about alternatives: plenty of  
>> people have already quite clearly stated that starting from HTML  
>> 4.01 is near unworkable, due to how vague it is, and nobody has  
>> put forward any other possible starting point.
> As this is the second time I hear someone say that no alternatives  
> have been offered, I’d like to refer to my earlier message where I  
> suggested two other approaches:
> I think both are based on the idea of cutting up the WHATWG’s specs  
> a little, the first doing a quick review for patents and then  
> copying over everything that’s not ‘dangerous’ and keeping the  
> remainder in a separate ‘sandbox’ for more in-depth review; the  
> second cutting up the spec in smaller ‘units’ that can be discussed  
> and integrated into the specification one by one.

I think we can handle objections to parts of the WHATWG spec as part  
of the process of considering it for adoption. So far I've heard a  
few general calls to chop it up and only adopt it piecewise, but no  
clear objections to specific parts of the spec as a showstopper.  
Note: this doesn't mean just something you disagree with, but  
something that you think is so bad that we shouldn't bring it in even  
as a starting point for future discussion. If we had objections like  

Your idea of doing patent review is interesting, but it is  
impractical for a few reasons:

1) At least under US patent law, the legal definition of "obvious"  
used by courts does not always match what we would apply as experts  
in the field.

2) Doing an active patent search is a dangerous thing to do. Knowing  
infringement of a patent imposes considerably greater damages than  
unknowing infringement, so it is often better to remain ignorant.

> That said, I don’t have any particular objections against  
> integrating the WHATWG’s specs as a whole. I only fear that with  
> things like for example <video> already having proactively been  
> added to the published specification draft, implementations even  
> being made already, it will be hard for me to effectively argue  
> that <object> should be used.

<video> will of course remain up for discussion like anything else.


Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 22:17:18 UTC