Re: CR exit criteria and features at risk for HTML5

Maciej Stachowiak writes:

> The Chairs and Team Contacts ... agree that the "permissive" version
> is likely to lead to a CR period of 1-2 years,
> 
> W3C Management feels strongly that getting to REC quickly is
> essential

Sam Ruby writes:

> I won't speak for W3C management, but only for myself.
> 
> The current REC is HTML 4.01 which is dated 1999.  I hope that we can
> agree that that is pretty bogus, and needs to be replaced ASAP.

I definitely agree with that. Thinking about it in those terms, even 1-2
years sounds like too long.

If ceasing to recommend HTML4.01 is the priority, then it makes sense to
publish as soon as HTML5 would make a better recommendation than
HTML4.01. In which case, it would make sense for the publication
criteria be phrased in terms of that, and not mention tests and interop
at all. Is that possible?

Indications that HTML5 is not 'better' than HTML4.01 in some areas could
be things like:

* For feature X implementers still need to refer to HTML4.01 rather than
  HTML5 to produce useful software.

* For feature Y authors still need to refer to HTML4.01 rather than
  HTML5 for a useful explanation of the feature.

* Feature Z in HTML5 is a change from HTML4.01 (or wasn't in it at all)
  but it isn't stable and there's a chance that we'll want to revert to
  the HTML4.01 behaviour (or remove the feature).

In the absence of any cases along those lines, HTML5 would be
unambiguously an improvement on HTML4.01, so, however bad HTML5 is, it
would make sense to start recommending it instead of HTML4.01.

Could the working group instead work towards identifying if there are
any areas of the spec which statuses like X, Y, or Z above, and if found
then prioritize fixing (or eliminating) those, then declare it suitable
for publishing as a recommendation?

Cheers

Smylers
-- 
http://twitter.com/Smylers2

Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:55:05 UTC