W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: A New Way Forward for HTML5

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:00:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4A68973E.2010107@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5
> project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the
> future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the
> decision comes at a time when many working with Web standards have taken
> issue with the way the HTML5 specification is being developed.
> 
> The shut down of the XHTML2 Working Group has brought to a head a
> long-standing set of concerns related to how the new specification is
> being developed. The following page outlines the current state of
> development and suggests that there is a more harmonious way to move
> forward. By adopting some or all of the proposals outlined below, the
> standards community will ensure that the greatest features for the Web
> are integrated into HTML5.
> 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/

For simplicity, I'll organize my response around the plan of action:

> # Implementation of git for distributed source control.

I'm certainly partial to git.  As an option, it is great.  Historically, 
it has not been a priority for the git developers to focus on Windows as 
an operating system, and I'm given to understand that some people still 
do use that operating system, though one or both of these factors may be 
changing.

I'm all for lowering the barrier to entry.  If people don't view an open 
offer apply my awesome ability to run the standard diff tool as 
favoritism towards any particular proposal, I'm quite willing to help 
anyone who needs help with the mechanics of integrating a change.

I have git installed myself, and have preloaded it with the current 
contents of http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps/, including history:

git clone http://code.intertwingly.net/public/git/webapps/

http://code.intertwingly.net/public/git/?p=webapps;a=summary

Meanwhile, the W3C has standardized on cvs, and the WHATWG on svn.  Over 
time, one or both may change, but I would hope that anybody would see 
this as an insurmountable roadblock at this time.

> #           Microsection splitter and documentation build system.

My view is that version control systems make the discussion about 
MicroSections largely a non-issue -- to the extent possible.  We clearly 
have differing views on subjects such as the summary attribute, and 
unless we are talking about picosections, the units that we are talking 
about will always be sub-document patches.

This not only applies on the authoring perspective, but on the ultimate 
split of the documents produced.

In any case, I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, and experimentation 
along these lines is welcome.

It is not clear to me yet what document build system improvements you 
are considering (what you describe sounds to me like a branch with the 
ability to add or remove individual patches -- something that git excels 
at), but again, improvements there are welcome.

> #           Recruit more committers into the HTML5 community.

I've tried to make it clear that I welcome such, in any case I certainly 
agree with this vision.  The question is how to execute better on it.

> #           Split features based on their experimental nature into
>               unstable and testing during Last Call.

That will certainly need to be done before Last Call.

> #           Implement in-line feedback mechanism for HTML5 spec.

Again, that would be welcome.

> #           Distributed extensibility proposals for HTML5.

We need a more concrete proposal.

> #           Better, more precise accessibility language for HTML5.

We need a more concrete proposal.

> #           Merge the HTML WG and WHAT WG communities. This may never happen.

There are multiple communities who are feeding input into this working 
group, and each of them (including the WHAT WG) provide input into 
multiple destinations.

> -- manu

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 17:01:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC