W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Request to halt the heartbeat publication of HTML5 WG Draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:53:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4C123FF4.2020609@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 10.06.2010 14:31, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 07:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 09.06.2010 03:48, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> ...
>>> At this time, I am asking that the upcoming heartbeat publication of the
>>> HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML Working Draft
>>> be halted until one or both are corrected.
>>> ...
>> My preference would be to eliminate the W3C->WHATWG reference. Those
>> drafts have stopped to be the "same" some time ago, and this WG has no
>> control about what the WHATWG version might say one week from now.
>> That being said: this is part of "Status Of This Document", which should
>> be maintained by the W3C team anyway, right? So how about just fixing
>> that, and proceeding with the publication?
> Current status:
> 1) A change has been made to the WHATWG draft that appears to address
> the core of my objection:
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004263.html
> I had a brief conversation with Paul last night, and he was inclined to
> agree. We are continuing to review this.
> ...

Optimally, we wouldn't need to have this conversation, thus, both specs 
should be the same, or even better, there was only one spec.

That being said:

The W3C copy still says:

"The latest stable version of the editor's draft of this specification 
is always available on the W3C CVS server and in the WHATWG Subversion 
repository. The latest editor's working copy (which may contain 
unfinished text in the process of being prepared) contains the latest 
draft text of this specification (amongst others). For more details, 
please see the WHATWG FAQ."

The link "latest editor's working copy" takes me to:

<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html> (do 
not follow this link with Firefox unless you're *very* patient)

*That* document has a section 1.1 "Is this HTML5" 
which says:

"This section is non-normative.

No, although it does contain everything that is part of HTML5. If you 
want only HTML5, please see the HTML specification.

This specification contains everything that the WHATWG is actively 
working on. For more details, please see the the relevant FAQ entry."

where "HTML specification" links to 
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/> (why not 
link there directly???).

Anyway; *that* document is titled

"HTML5 (including next generation additions still in development)"

which contains stuff like @ping and the Atom conversion, which the HTML 
WG has decided to drop.

All this confusion could be avoided by either not linking there in the 
first place (something the W3C team can decide), or to openly say "this 
document also contains stuff the W3C didn't want, but the WHATWG wants 
to keep". Claiming these parts are "next generation additions" is 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 13:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC