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

Re: Preparing to launch the Forms Task Force ...

From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:37:01 +0100
Message-Id: <458604BE-5431-42C8-A5BE-D0964D1F51D1@gmx.de>
Cc: AsbjÝrn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HŚkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>

Am 14.03.2007 um 16:07 schrieb Laurens Holst:

> I am having doubts how this W3C - WHATWG relationship can work  
> properly without the WHATWG giving in, even though Ian listed some  
> instances where it apparantly has. I think you made a good point  
> that having two separate places for discussion being less than  
> ideal, to say the least. Plus that all those people on the WHATWG  
> list havenít signed the patent policy. Can the W3C copy a feature  
> in the WHATWGís spec if the person who proposed it didnít join the  
> W3C HTML WG? It seems to me that any new idea proposed on the  
> WHATWG list could potentially be one idea less that can make it  
> into the W3C specification, even if itís really good. The person  
> who originally proposed it could file a patent, because he(/she) is  
> not bound by the policy. The only thing you could do is to track  
> him down and get him to sign the patent policy separately, which  
> seems like a lot of trouble. Or am I missing something here?
> It also sounds doesnít sound like an efficient use of Ianís time if  
> he is constantly keeping both specs in sync (although it of course  
> is his time to spend), and we would easily get into a situation  
> where every new feature introduced in one working group is  
> separately reviewed by the other before it is accepted. And what if  
> itís notÖ Ian says that he will keep the WHATWG spec a strict  
> superset, but what if the WHATWG members are against a certain and  
> the W3C members in favour? Say, a <h> element for headers within  
> sections, something that never got into the WHATWG spec. Does the  
> W3C take precedence? In that case, why is the WHATWG still there?
> To me it seems that it would be so much easier if the WHATWG handed  
> over their entire effort to the W3C, then everyone could work  
> together on this instead of getting two (possibly diverging)  
> specifications. Iím sure that this does not sound like a happy idea  
> to everyone, especially those who have put a lot of time in  
> organising the WHATWG effort, but people have shown enthusiasm for  
> the W3C picking this up, now they should allow the W3C to really do  
> so and not complicate matters unnecessarily, but just move from the  
> WHATWG to the W3C as the location for discussion and spec development.
> I just ask you, given the W3C HTML working group that is now  
> starting, what is the purpose of the WHATWG?

I totally agree with you, Laurens.
Especially the issues of HTML5, named on http://xhtml.com/en/future/x- 
html-5-versus-xhtml-2/#x5-uncool should be solved.
I am personally confident with XHTML, it should get extended by the  
goodies of HTML5, the issues and not-so-cool properties of HTML5  
shouldn't make their way into the new HTML WG/Spec.
Ian's honourable engagement in the WHATG and the rest of the WHATG  
maintainers/contributors should completely merge into this new W3C  
HTML WG to bundle all energy to one common shared goal.

Sierk Bornemann | Germany
email:            sierkb@gmx.de
WWW:              http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:37:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:21:34 UTC