W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2014

Re: After 5

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:25:23 +0200
Message-ID: <54200723.4030506@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Art!

On 21/09/2014 16:31 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 9/16/14 8:03 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> # We can change pretty much everything
>> # Unhappiness is not a fatality
>> # Don't be partisan
>> # Developers
>> # Doing more than talking
>
> This is a great list Robin!

:)

> I very much like what you say in this document! However, - and please
> understand I don't want to start a "partisan" type flame war - it does
> seem like the proposed feature split _could_ make it a bit difficult
> (for various stakeholders) to clearly understand "so, what exactly is
> the `canonical` version of features X/Y/Z - HTMLWG or WHATWG version?",
> although I suppose one could argue moving toward the proposed model
> wouldn't necessarily make things any more complicated than they are today.

That is very much a valid concern.

Long-term, my hope is that the new set up can contribute to a 
normalisation of the W3C-WHATWG relationship, and since the project is 
deliberately non-partisan it might just be that everyone uses it 
together. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm pretty sure I saw a few others.

Shorter term, I think it could actually add some clarity. Not having to 
deal with a monolith makes it easier to see what's active and what's 
not, and allows communities of interest (including implementers) to 
focus on specific areas. This could help know where things are going on 
and where they're essentially dead.

But overall it's certainly true that there is potential for confusion. 
We'll have to handle it as it comes and play it by ear.

> Anyhow, thanks for proposal! It seems like this could be a good general
> topic to discuss at TPAC, probably during one of the Wednesday sessions
> (given this is relevant to the proposed Web @ 2014 session perhaps it
> could be included in that session ^1).

That's pretty much what I was planning to talk about in that session ;)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 11:25:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:10 UTC