- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:44:22 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
(have a few hours, sending a couple more posts) I'm looking forward to a new version of the "Design Principles" which includes new introductory material -- as you've indicated -- explaining the context and applicability of the principles. I suggest you might want to be step away a bit from the comparison with XHTML and the history of WhatWG. I think it is possible to talk about the design principles of this group's efforts without comparison, or imputed superiority with that of any other group. >>> Many of the core ideas in the Design Principles date back to the >>> 2004 W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents[2] >>> and the schism that arose there. The W3C decided that the future >>> of the Web was a new Web based on XML + XHTML + SMIL + SVG + XForms >>> + CDF. Some dissenters, chiefly but not exclusively browser >>> vendors, felt that the right path forward was incremental >>> evolution on top of HTML + CSS + JS + DOM. This was based on >>> concerns over continuity, compatibility and so forth. Some of the >>> dissenters formed the WHATWG to carry on its vision. The "W3C decided that the future of the Web" seemed to imply that a decision to work on something was a prediction of the future, which would have been foolish. It doesn't help to dramatize the events as a "schism", since many of the WHATWG members also implemented SVG and (to some degree) XHTML and XSLT as well as other kinds of web content. I'd suggest something like: < The genesis of the Design Principles can be traced back to < a 2004 W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents[2]. < Some of the participants in the workshop (chiefly browser vendors) < felt that the future of the web should be an incremental < evolution on top of HTML + CSS + JS + DOM. This group formed < the WHATWG to develop that vision, based on concerns over < continuity, compatibility and so forth, as an alternative to < the XML + XHTML + SMIL + SVG + XForms + CDF being pursued < within the W3C. ---------------------------------- >>> In 2007, the W3C decided to return to work on HTML. The HTML >>> Working Group was formed. I think "Decided to return to work" is again pejorative, and could be rephrased to avoid the questionable implication that W3C wasn't working on HTML before 2007, e.g.: < In 2007, an agreement was reached between WHATWG and W3C to < work together on HTML, starting from the WHATWG document already < under development. The W3C HTML was formed. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 19:45:03 UTC