Re: snapshots vs living standards

Hi Marcos,

you wrote:

"Irrespective of what is thought of the process, evidently something was
done right"

Another spec that has seen high levels of implementation, probably higher
than HTML5 currently, is WAI-ARIA 1.0.
In contrast to HTML5  this spec was developed in the traditional W3C
process.

Not to say that the tradition should stay, just that the process is not
necessarily a barrier to adoption.

Also it should be noted that while in the general sense HTML5 features and
their interoperable implementation are being heartily embraced by the
browser vendors, accessibility support and interop is not so hearty. (see
html5accessibility.com). What HTML5 clearly fails to do is to provide the
details of how to implement interoperable accessibility support in
browsers. That is why a group of us are working, in the W3C HTML WG space,
on providing the information that HTML5 fails to provide [1].

So as well as doing some things right there is obviously things that are
not so right, being done.


[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-api-map/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

regards
Stevef


On 3 March 2012 15:42, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Saturday, 3 March 2012 at 13:56, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 2012, at 19:27 , Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > > In a recent private discussion spawned from one on a W3C mailing list,
> I
> > > was defending the "living standard" model we use at the WHATWG for
> > > developing the HTML standard (where we just have a standard that we
> > > update more or less every day to make it better and better) as opposed
> > > to the "snapshot" model the W3C traditionally uses where one has a
> > > "draft" that nobody is supposed to implement, and when it's "ready",
> > > that draft is carved in stone and placed on a pedestal. The usual
> > > argument is something like "engineering depends on static definitions,
> > > because otherwise communication becomes unreliable". I wrote a lengthy
> > > reply. I include it below, in case anyone is interested.
> >
> >
> >
> > This post could have been a good start for an interesting discussion,
> but sadly Ian's definition of the "snapshot" model is largely a
> fantasy-grade strawman so there doesn't seem to be that much room for
> talking.
> I think you are dismissing it off hand without clear justification (can
> you explain the straw-man? I would personally like to see a full
> evidence-based rebuttal). I tried to present similar evidence and make
> similar arguments to this list in the past.
>
> Irrespective of what is thought of the process, evidently something was
> done right to see the level of adoption and interoperability of HTML5
> features (caniuse.com and similar sites present evidence that Ian is
> correct to this respect, specially for a specification that has not even
> reached CR). I don't know how much that has to do with the WHATWG process
> (if anything) - but the HTML/WHAT-WG group is doing something right (even
> if a lot of people are getting really pissed off in/by the process). This
> is also a good indicator of HTML5's rise over the decline of XHTML and XML:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/trends/?q=xhtml,+html5,+xml&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1
>
> Do you have any other explanation as to why we are seeing such a high rate
> of adoption and interoperability with HTML5 vs other
> standards-in-the-works? Or is it just that we needed HTML5's features so
> much right now that we (industry, Web community) are willing to put up with
> the WHATWG/living standard process? Something is working… really well… that
> is undeniable.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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