Re: Relationship between the WHATWG and W3C (was: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 / ISSUE-2 Change Proposal)

On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> A clarification on this: it's my understanding that the ping
>>>>> attribute will likely remain in the WHATWG's extended spec,
>>>>> which also includes other "future development" features that
>>>>> may be proposed for future versions of HTML, such as the
>>>>> <device> element. I do not expect anyone will have a problem
>>>>> with this, but I wanted to make this clear so there is no
>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>> As long as the WHATWG specification of extensions to HTML5 is titled and scoped as extensions to HTML5 (and not as HTML5
>>>> itself), then I won't have any problems with it.
>>> The WHATWG drafts that I expect would contain this material are:
>>> "HTML5 (including next generation additions still in development)" (This includes the contents of W3C HTML5, plus some other W3C
>>> drafts , plus some material for future development)
>>> "Web Applications 1.0" (This includes everything that's in the
>>> above draft plus the contents of some other W3C drafts plus
>>> probably even more stuff.
>>> While the first name strikes me as a little odd (how can it be
>>> version 5, and yet also include next generation additions?) I would
>>> hope we can resolve these two issues without having to convince the
>>> WHATWG to retitle any of their documents.
>> It isn't just "a little odd" -- it is fundamentally dishonest and
>> deceptive, a deliberate rejection of W3C decision-making authority
>> over HTML, and quite childish.  Why anyone would want to associate
>> with such behavior is beyond my understanding.
> As is name calling.  As I do want people to continue to associate with this effort, I will ask you to take such behavior elsewhere.

Actually, that wasn't name calling.  It was descriptive of the behavior,
not the person.  I could explain the difference by example, but then
you'd just blame me for the example.

I'd really appreciate it if the chairs did not make a mockery out
of the standards process just to maintain the illusion of progress.

>> A fix to that situation is something I would expect the chairs to
>> impose, even if it is as trivial as a title change.
> I don't believe that the WHATWG has a chair.  In any case, the WHATWG
> provides mailing lists for discussions about the documents they produce.

We have three chairs.  At least one of those should be capable of
enforcing the consensus process by insisting the editor maintain
one authoritative reference for the HTML standard-in-progress.
Identical copies of that reference, hosted elsewhere, is fine.
Different text with a different title and scope, hosted elsewhere,
is also fine.

> As to the larger question of what HTML5 is... the WHATWG and the W3C
> clearly agree on major areas on what is the core spec.  Of the six
> documents to be published by the W3C this go around, three are not
> published by the WHATWG.  The documents published by the WHATWG span
> multiple working groups and even standards organizations.
> Trying to argue about this is about as productive as trying to argue
> about whether or not jQuery.getJSON is, or is not, AJAX.
> This co-chair of this WG is focused on the documents that the W3C HTML
> Working Group is publishing.  If there was to be any imposition on the
> WHATWG by the W3C, my guess is that that would have to happen above my
> pay grade.

Well, then, this WG has no reason to exist.  I suggest you close shop
and stop wasting our time.


Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 17:16:28 UTC