W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Request for Decision: HTML5 Proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:46:22 -0700
Message-Id: <15E5E923-15AB-4466-8373-D12922313636@apple.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

I'd like to request that the chairs call the question (using whatever  
decision procedure is appropriate) on the proposal to adopt the  
WHATWG specs from Apple, Mozilla and Opera. There has been sufficient  
time for discussion, and the public feedback has been overwhelmingly  
in favor.

Dan Connolly asked me to consider whether there are any worthwhile  
proposed amendments to this proposal. I have seen two basic  
categories of possible amendment:

1) Some people have proposed that instead of adopting HTML5's WHATWG  
wholesale, and then refining it (including possibly removing, adding  
and changing parts of it), we should start with a blank slate and  
adopt single sections at a time. So far as public feedback on the  
list goes, I think this view was expressed by a relatively small  
minority, and none of them seemed to feel  very strongly about the  
issue. So I am not inclined to consider this alternative a friendly  
amendment. I can double-check with the other signatories of the  
proposal if that would help.

2) There has been some disagreement with the nomination of Ian  
Hickson as (sole) editor. I count one "why not try someone new?" and  
one "-1" on the public list. There has also been a great deal of  
feedback specifically praising Ian's spec-writing skills. Some have  
also privately suggested that Ian shouldn't be sole editor. But so  
far, no other editors or editing teams have been nominated on the  
public list (though some have alluded to having candidates in mind).

If I have the choice between just Ian and Ian + Mystery Person X,  
then I prefer just Ian. If anyone has a specific proposed  
alternative, they need to state it publicly. Failing that, Ian is the  
only candidate to have been nominated.

One thing to keep in mind is that adding more editors will not  
necessarily increase speed or quality of work. Indeed, it may harm  
both. So if anyone wants to make a nomination of another individual  
or team for editor(s) please justify why you think it would be more  

Ian was first nominated for editor by Håkon over a month ago. He's  
since been nominated again (and seconded many times), and no one has  
made any other nominations. Given this, I don't think we need more  
than a week to allow for other nominations.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC