- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:28:13 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > While this is an interesting discussion, I note the following: > > - This Working Group is not presently chartered to do HTML6; our charter > only encompasses one new version of HTML. Thus, specific discussion of what > will be in it is not entirely in scope for this list. Yes, and no. If this group has a mindset that this version of HTML is just a stepping stone, we may not make the best decisions. However, point taken, and I'll drop this thread. > - On the other hand, nearly every successful W3C technology has had multiple > versions. It is probably a good assumption that any given W3C spec is > unlikely to be the final version. Thus, in general, it is a good assumption > that features we don't include in HTML5 can still be added in some future > version. > > Regards, > Maciej > Shelley > On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:28 AM, David Singer wrote: > >> I disagree with you, mostly. >> >> I have worked on 'kitchen sink' specifications, where they have tried to >> cover everything that everyone wants in the 'specification to end all >> specifications'. It results in bloat. You do have to decide to make a cut, >> and deal with some questions in a future revision, or you end up with >> Brooks' second-system effect >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month>. >> >> What does make sense is to check; "in the next version, we think we will >> want to do something like X. Have we designed the current version so that X >> will be difficult?". Surprisingly, the answer to this often results in more >> trimming of the current version so as to leave a 'cleaner field' for future >> work. Designing on the assumption that there will *not* be a successor is a >> mistake. >> >> I think the pragmatic attitude of the HTML5 effort, to focus designs >> supported by use cases, data, experiment, and adoption, is really helping >> here. >> >> I agree that specifications (or rather, their artefacts) live forever; >> look at the effort we are now putting into historic HTML compatibility. >> >> On Dec 4, 2009, at 6:52 , Shelley Powers wrote: >> >>> This is a general observation, based on discussions I've read in the >>> IRCs, the WhatWG email list, and in this email list. I keep seeing a >>> reference to HTML6 (and HTML7 and so on). >>> >>> Specifications are not like applications. There is no such thing as >>> an old or out of date specification, if what it defined continues to >>> work. >>> >>> Specifications for something like HTML need to be extremely stable >>> because it can take years to remove past mistakes. It's not like >>> popping out a new version of gimp. It's not even like popping out a >>> new operating system version, such as Snow Leopard or Windows 7. It >>> should be more like putting out a new version of the Internet >>> Protocol: something that's fundamental to the web, generating many >>> dependencies, and extremely significant expense and time when changed. >>> >>> When we make statements such as "Oh, we can put that off to HTML6", or >>> "If this doesn't work, we'll just pull it in HTML6", what we doing, in >>> effect, is signaling this group's failure. Either we're trying to >>> include too much in the umbrella term of "HTML", including application >>> specific material, which is very volatile; or we're not dealing with >>> issues correctly, or facing problems and disconnects directly. >>> >>> Regardless, any mention of HTML6 in this group should be treated as an >>> admission of failure on the part of this group. >>> >>> We should be looking at HTML5, as an entity that can meet the needs >>> for a web page markup, and associate DOM, both now, and in the future. >>> >>> Shelley >>> >> >> David Singer >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 19:28:46 UTC