W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:27:17 +0200
Message-ID: <507C4775.6000806@kosek.cz>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.10.2012 14:35, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> CR exit criteria. For each new feature, the trunk from which the HTML
> WG cuts release branches may be maintained by the WHATWG or by another
> Community Group. The HTML WG will focus on getting releases branches
> to REC and won’t position itself as a venue for developing new
> features.”

From one point of view this makes sense and given the legacy behind
current HTML5 development and maintenance it's de facto status for now.
But in a long term I would prefer HTML WG would be single point where
new features gets speced. If such model can work for all other W3C
technologies I don't see any reason why it couldn't work for HTML.

> I find it concerning that the communications from the Chairs on the
> topic of the relationship between the HTML WG and the WHATWG have been
> consistently vaguer and less committal than communications coming from
> the CEO or the Communications Team. I’m also concerned about the
> prospect of developing new features in a venue that both has a bad
> track record at providing a good environment for such work and will be
> occupied with the opposite task of removing stuff in order to exit CR
> (i.e. this WG) while a venue with a good track record at providing an
> environment conducive of feature development (WHATWG) or not much of a
> track record—good or bad—(other CGs) are available. These concerns
> would be easy to address by being overt about the planned relationship
> by adopting text such as the text I proposed in the previous
> paragraph.

I understand to your concerns and you are right that communication was
sometimes misleading and creating false expectations. On the other hand
your proposal gives rather exclusive position to WHAT WG. It makes sense
as WHAT WG and especially Ian made extensive amount of work producing
WebApps and then HTML5 spec. From WHAT WG point of view it makes sense
to keep this exclusive position. But WHAT WG should also try to
understand why for many people it is unacceptable to live in a situation
where future of the Web evolution is in hands of closed organization
which can't be controlled and new members are invitation-only. For many
people this is unacceptable from principle, irrespectively of how good
or bad is such organization in developing new HTML features.

I think that each "side" in HTML WG, WHAT CG and WHAT WG has very
different expectation about split of work and responsibilities often
shifted by their wishes. So while I probably don't completely agree with
you on how responsibilities should be split I agree that this should be
defined in a completely unambiguous and clear way to prevent future


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 17:27:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC