Re: New split-out drafts vs. modular design

On Jan 10, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Aryeh Gregor < 
> > wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Shelley Powers < 
>> > wrote:
>>> I am concerned, though, about the fact, as you mentioned in your
>>> email, that the WhatWG HTML document has changed its name to WhatWG
>>> HTML, and that it includes items split out from the HTML5
>>> specification. In fact, if elements such as details, progress, and
>>> meter are actually deleted (not split off), there will be potential
>>> variances now between the two documents.
>>> This is not a good idea. This is not a sound technical decision.
>> What do you propose, short of effectively shutting down the WHATWG or
>> HTMLWG altogether?  That would solve the problem, but doesn't seem
>> likely.
> I would suggest that there be one document known as HTML5, and that it
> is the same in both organizations. If the WhatWG feels it can no
> longer support this, then I think we have a problem.

Mostly it is a matter for the WHATWG how to organize their specs. But  
my personal preference would be if WHATWG had a document called HTML5  
that largely matched the W3C copy in scope and content, and a separate  
document that included whatever future additions and extensions they  
care to add. Having a matching document in WHATWG space would be  
helpful for a couple of reasons:

- Reduces potential for confusion about what HTML5 is.
- Makes clear what parts of the WHATWG document are also protected  
(via the W3C copy) by the W3C Patent Policy.
- Because the WHATWG copy is currently licensed under much more  
liberal terms than the W3C copy, it would be helpful to have a  
matching copy in WHATWG space to use as a basis for excerpts in  
conformance checkers, implementations, third-party reference materials  
and the like.

I will make the same suggestion to the WHATWG on the WHATWG list.


Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 14:47:22 UTC