- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:00:46 -0400
- 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