- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:56:43 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:53 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, David Hyatt wrote: > > > > My interpretation of what constitutes a browser vendor is based off the > > Success Criteria section of the charter: > > > > "The HTML Working Group's work will be considered a success if there are > > two independent complete and interoperable implementations of its > > deliverable that are widely used (more than 10% of the Web browser > > market each according to at least two widely recognized metric reporting > > organizations)." > > As others have noted, the W3C team silently made this criteria qualitative > instead of quantitative at the last minute. Why the team made this > decision is not public, but it seems fishy to me. Well, the chartering process was pretty messy, yes. But actually, why the team made this decision *is* public. "We strongly object to the 10% market share threshold in the Success Criteria." -- Apple's advice to W3C, quoted in the webkit weblog January 17th, 2007 http://webkit.org/blog/?p=89 The comments include additional discussion. That conversation was somewhat unofficial, but it is public. (There's an official disposition of comments that is W3C member-confidential. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2007JanMar/0061.html ) > How could we consider > this work a success if less than 10% of the market uses it? The reason the > W3C joined the HTML5 effort was specifically because the previous efforts > -- namely XHTML -- had failed to gain traction. Why wouldn't we want a > measurable goal? > > Oh well. Yeah; as far as the charter goes, oh well. When we actually do make a request for Proposed Recommendation status, I still hope we will have a compelling argument, based on widely used statistics, that the spec is compatible with existing practice. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 05:56:48 UTC