- From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:44:18 -0800
- To: "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0712241344i4db7efd5web01a90ed0976717@mail.gmail.com>
On Dec 24, 2007 8:21 AM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote: > *[snip]* > I'm disappointed to see a lot of anti-XHTML sentiment within the group > considering that this spec is supposed to be both HTML5 and XHTML5 I > would have thought that people could be a bit more open minded than > this. We are, after all, supposed to be "Leading the web to its full > potential" yet some people insist on putting limitations on the web by > restricting it to only text/html. > > I don't think that the working group and specification is being run in > an objective, democratic and non-biased manner. For example: > First, any good design process is *not* democratic, rather something closer to a meritocracy. All voices are not and should not be equal. Whether this works out to be a good thing or bad thing depends where the weight lands, and how it is used. :) Second, some folk - of which I am one - are coming to the opinion that XHTML *in the web browser* is looking more like an evolutionary dead-end, not "leading the web to it's full potential". Seemed like a good idea at one time, but on further examination, not so much. Clearly this is a judgement call. There are going to be many of these judgement calls. A practical standard cannot be a union of all possibly-workable ideas. > *[snip]* > The HTMLWG is becoming less and less democratic everyday. It has become > a dictatorship driven by three companies: Google, Apple and Opera. These > companies have there own interest at heart which may or may not be in > the best interest of the open web. Unless one happens to be an employee > (or a friend of an employee) of these companies, one doesn't seem to > have much say in the way that HTML5 and XHTML5 gets developed. > Yes, well best to mention the elephant in the dining room. Without Microsoft implementing HTML5 (whatever that turns out to be) in Internet Explorer, as a standard HTML5 will turn out be about as meaningful as HTML4. There is no way to deny that Microsoft has a big voice. There is no doubt that this *could* be a problem. Google, Apple and Opera all have significant voices, but will all have to adapt to whatever Microsoft decides to do. Yes, like many other folk I am wary of Microsoft (the gift of a sometimes dubious history). So far at least, the folk from Microsoft seem to be very reasonable, and - allowing for reasonable difference of opinion - to be doing the right thing. The recent announcement of IE8 code passing a CSS torture test is a Very Big Deal - and a strong positive hint. On the other hand, as to what (if any) decisions are being made, why, and by whom ... here I have to agree somewhat with Dean. Things are a little non-obvious. I suspect this has mostly to do with trying to invent a new process (for W3C) on the fly - nothing inherently bad. But I cannot entirely dismiss Dean's suspicions, as ... I just do not know. My suggestion would to have someone periodically write for each major topic a concise summary of discussion to date. Basically an exercise to bring everyone on to the same conceptual page. The scattering of email threads and wiki pages ... lack focus. My 2¢ worth.
Received on Monday, 24 December 2007 21:44:35 UTC