Re: Neutrality in "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

On Jul 3, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:53, Robert Burns wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> If you are concerned about public perception, why would you  
>>> prefer the appearance that in order to find out what is going on,  
>>> people should go see the WHATWG stuff instead of the W3C stuff?
>> I am concerned about perception of W3C and the work of this WG. I  
>> am not as concerned about the perception of other organizations.  
>> To the extend that I am concerned about the perception of other  
>> organizations, I have little or no control about addressing that  
>> concern (including the WhatWG).
> Let me rephrase:
> If you are concerned about public perception, what does it tell  
> about this WG if the best course of action for people to find a  
> summary of the current state of the Editor's Draft of the main  
> deliverable of this WG (short of reading the Draft itself) is to go  
> read

I think it tells them (if done correctly on the links from our pages)  
that this WG has adopted the WhatWG's work on HTML5 and WF2 as its  
starting point for developing a new version of HTML The HTML WG is  
currently working diligently on its own first public working draft  
HTML5 and visitors should return soon to see it.

What do you think it would / should tell visitors.

>> However, it reflects the differences between the WhatWG's draft  
>> and HTML4. Since this WG has not yet put its own mark on the  
>> HTML5  draft, it cannot possibly represent W3C differences between  
>> the HTML5 draft and HTML4.
> After the header, both the WHATWG draft and the W3C Editor's Draft  
> are identical in content. The diff between HTML 4.01 and the  
> current W3C Editor's Draft is not a matter of opinion and the diff  
> is exactly the same as the diff between HTML 4.01 and the current  
> WHATWG draft.

And that's already been published by the WhatWG. So what possible  
advantage could there be in this WG publishing what someone else has  
already published? We could publish the latest cover story from Vogue  
magazine here too and that would be simply a factual republishing of  
someone else's work. Would that fulfill the heartbeat requirement?  
Look at us; we have a heartbeat; we can publish other's work. We need  
to publish work that reflects the work of this WG. Just give it some  
time and we'll have something to publish. Rushing this does not help  
us get our work done.

Take care,

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 21:32:48 UTC