- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:46:50 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vko5O-M3Gvzn3An-Roy=ZLPhf0MONm5gND3C5DaO9350Q@mail.gmail.com>
hi henri, I think to go to FPWD, there should be broader buy-in, including from > implementors, showing > that the extension specification is seen as a good idea. > I think that if implementors* speak up and say we will NOT implement the proposed feature and provide a detailed technical explanation of why, or we would implement the feature, but think the specification should be modified in x ways, it is reasonable that the proposed feature not become an FPWD at that point. * by implementors I would expect the person making the claim to be making it with some authority, not just a random employee who may or may not be partisan. >I object to treating the inclusion of the hgroup name in the parsing algorithm as being at risk I don't think anybody has proposed this, have they? I have proposed extension spec text, in which for authoring conformance hgroup be made obsolete (like <center> etc),because its sole stated reason for being in the spec in the first place is to mask subheadings from the outline algorithm (with a knock on effect of collapsing heading semantics in accessibility APIs) and the outline algorithm has not been implemented (except in a borked way by the JAWS screen reader, which also does not implement hgroups effect on the outline). regards Steve On 11 October 2012 17:02, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > If the HTML Working Group passes this Call for Consensus, then the > Working Group shall: > > * Endorse sending the plan as a whole as input to the W3C to guide > revisions to the HTML Working Group charter: < > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html> > > “For issues: require actual specification text to be published in the > form of extension specifications first, and only after said text meets > the exit criteria for CR, consider folding the result into the core > specification.” > > Requiring ISSUE-driven changes to meet the criteria for CR exit is a > good idea for protecting the core deliverables from changes that > aren't backed by broader buy-in. However, publishing the extension > specifications as deliverables of the HTML WG poses a risk. > > I object to taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG > participant offers a draft. (The plan is not clear about FPWD > criteria, but the sentiment as well as past Chair actions and a later > bullet point in your email suggest a very low bar for FPWD, so I’m > objecting to something that only seems to be part of the plan as I > don’t have any concrete text to object to.) I think to go to FPWD, > there should be broader buy-in, including from implementors, showing > that the extension specification is seen as a good idea. > > One of our grievances with the WHATWG has been that Hixie has > sometimes put unbaked stuff in the monolithic spec giving unbaked > stuff undue weight to make it appear to be on par with the well-baked > stuff or, worse, has kept stuff that has received explicitly negative > implementor feedback and no positive enthusiasm in the spec (consider > context menu items). Keeping stuff like that in the spec is basically > a bait for the more indifferent implementors to implement the unbaked > or bad feature. > > Letting any HTML WG participant write up an Extension Specification > and get it published as an FPWD does not address our grievance with > Hixie and the WHATWG. Instead, it potentially multiplies the problem. > We shouldn't evolve the Web platform by leaving bad features as bait > out there for long enough to someone who hasn't been paying attention > to implement (e.g. to score on “HTML5” testing sites). Instead, I > think we should require affirmative indication that a couple of > implementors think a feature is a good idea before publishing it in a > way that makes the feature seem like a peer to the features that are > already widely deployed or otherwise are widely agreed to. > > “To prevent unnecessary confusion, the HTML5 specification will drop > explicit indications that any given extension is obsolete once an > extension specification exists that has been published as a FPWD.” > > It seems to me that this isn't for preventing confusion but for > preventing political ratholing about the indications. I expect > mutually contradictory Extension Specifications published by the HTML > WG to *increase* confusion. > > “In addition, we will work to find ways to promote these extensions as > a part of a family of HTML5 specifications.” > > What criteria must an extension to fulfill to get promotion under the > HTML5 brand? I object to promoting Web Intents, HTML+RDFa or Encrypted > Media Extensions like that. In general, I think the specs should carry > their own weight instead of relying on being perceived to be part of > HTML5. For example, Anne’s Encoding Standard shows that if a spec has > merit on its own, it will get respect without such brand promotion. > > “The evidence shows that placing technologies in their own extension > specifications, while initially controversial in some cases, has > proven to be a long-term benefit for peace and harmony in the end.” > > The strategy of splitting things up so that controversial stuff gets > to proceed in peace makes me even more concerned about the > above-mentioned problem of giving undue weight to ideas that someone > who’d have raised an ISSUE under the old process has written up > without affirmative implementor buy-in that it is a good idea. > > “The HTML Working Group should maintain a liaison with the following > groups: Community Groups, including but not limited to Web Hypertext > Application Technology (WHATWG) Community Group” > > This is good even though very vague. > > “The HTML Working Group will consider proposals for future > specifications from Community Groups, encouraging open participation > within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources.” > > I think that it's risky to establish a new venue for each such > specification. Experience suggests that developing specifications for > the Web Platform without the participation of browser implementors > leads to technically bad results and to frustration. Therefore, I > advise against establishing a new Community Group for each feature > like happened recently with responsive images. It's better to propose > and develop new features where implementors are already participating > productively and paying attention, such as the WHATWG or the WebApps > WG. > > “Give the Task Force the authority to create willful violations > (overriding of existing specification text) of the HTML5 > specification, as long as they are clearly documented as such and > communicated.” > > It seems unfortunate to prioritize the ability of different parties to > write down what they like over having a proper definition of what > needs to be implemented. This sort of thing will lead to author > confusion, since Web authors in general won't have a good idea of the > W3C politics to figure out which conflicting document will be treated > as the real thing for purposes of implementation i.e. what will > actually work. > > Conceptually, *giving* someone with the authority to create willful > violations doesn't make sense. One is supposed to *take* that > authority when the entity who specs are being willfully violated isn't > doing its job properly. > > > * Make a WG Decision to adopt Version 3 of the HTML Working Group > Decision Policy: < > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html> > > (A summary of the changes is available here: < > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#dp> and here > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0188.html>) > > The Plan talks about writing Extension Specifications instead of > ISSUEs. Yet, version 3 of the Decision Policy still talks about Change > Proposals rather than Extension Specifications. Are dissenters > supposed to write Extension Specifications or Change Proposals? Or > does writing Extension Specifications only apply to pre-existing > ISSUEs? > > > * Make WG Decisions to pursue each of HTML Working Group issues 30, 164, > 185, 194, 195, 200, 203, and 206 as extension specifications > > See above. I think it’s a good idea to keep these separate unless they > meet the CR exit criteria, but I think they should be even more > separate: not positioned as publications of this WG. At the very > least, the Status of this Document section should identify these as > dissenting opinions and not as specifications on par with the Working > Group deliverables that enjoy more consensus. I object to deciding to > publish such Extension Specifications in a way that portrays them as > being on equal footing with for example the canvas API and fails to > conspicuously portray them as dissenting opinions. > > > * Make a WG Decision to amend to the HTML Accessibility Task Force Work > Statement to allow the Task Force to create extension specs for > accessibility-related issues, as follows: < > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html> > > NOTE: to take effect, this amendment must also be approved by the > Protocols & Formats Working Group, and the Task Force itself. > > I object to this if the resulting Extension Specifications are > portrayed as deliverables of the HTML WG. At the very least, the > Status of this Document section should make it clear that only a > subset of the Working Group has had authority over the contents of the > specification and such specification should not receive brand > promotion according to the promotion provision of the Plan. > > > * Include hgroup in the list of at-risk features for HTML5. > > What exactly does this mean? I agree that the contribution of hgroup > to the document outline should be considered to be at-risk unless two > browsers implement the outline algorithm in an hgroup-sensitive way. > In fact, I expect the entire outline algorithm to be at-risk. > > I object to treating the inclusion of the hgroup name in the parsing > algorithm as being at risk, since it has been interoperable > implemented in all the major browser engines. I also object to > treating the UA stylesheet rule hgroup { display: block; } as being at > risk, because it, too, has been interoperable implemented in all the > major browser engines. I intend to Formally Object to any Working > Group Decision that removes the hgroup-related interoperably > implemented parts of the parsing algorithm or the UA stylesheet from a > deliverable that describes the parsing algorithm or the UA stylesheet > or to any Working Group Decision that decides to publish an Extension > Specification that seeks to modify UA conformance criteria by the > means of a delta spec to the effect of removing said parts. > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > generally, there is a > > generic "master" branch on which work continues. Periodically there is > > a new branch created in which work is stabilized. > > I object to the plan of being silent on what the master branch is. I > think the master branch should be the one maintained by the WHATWG. I > expect this to be congruent with what the CEO of the W3C expressed in > http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/07/html5_and_htmlnext.html about Ian working > on .next. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 08:47:59 UTC