Re: Current Status related to WHATWG (was Multipart response support and other new features)

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 04:59 -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Our scope is considerably smaller than that.
> >
> >   
> May I ask for some clarification related to WHATWG?

Well, I suppose, but it seems to me that these questions
have already been answered to the extent that they can be,
at this point. 

We may be reaching the limitations of email. I'm making
a mental note to bump up the priority of a teleconference.

>   I'm really confused 
> about how this WG and WHATWG relate:
>     * Does WHATWG continue in parallel, and if so how do we reconcile
>       the two?

According to , Ian Hickson
is the acting WHATWG spokesperson. He has answered
this question to my satisfaction...

"The WHATWG isn't going to stop ..."

>     * Are we starting with the WHATWG spec, or starting from scratch
>       potentially incorporating their spec on a piecemeal basis?
>     * If we start with their spec, are all decisions they made accepted,
>       or are they some decisions open for discussion?
>     * If some decisions open for discussion, how will we determine?

That is an acknowledged open issue:

HTML spec baseline. charter says HTML4; shall we skip ahead to HTML5 in
one step? a 14 March message from Glazman in the brainstorming thread
suggests choosing a some version of the HTML5 spec for review 
        we could, with permission from Apple, Opera, and Mozilla, have
        both this HTML working group's specification and the WHATWG's
        specification be the same actual document 
        Ian Hickson Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:58:38 +0000

I am tracking the level of consensus around this issue.
So far, I see very little argument against, but I don't
think it's best to try to close the issue until I
finish recruiting some more WG members.

>     * And any other insight you can give will be appreciated.
> BTW, I followed WHATWG and had intended to bring up several issues, 
> especially with WebForms, but was unable to find the time.  I'm hoping 
> this WG will allow me to address those issues.
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 18:46:56 UTC