Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal

On 11/21/2014 4:03 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> For what Sam proposed, it looks to me that it gives an W3C influence 
> only at Candidate REC and later  (and influense only if WHATWG cares 
> about these snapshots). That is so late that many things would be 
> widely implemented and difficult to change.  It seems just a way to 
> provide feedback to the WHATWG and a decision made late on whether 
> it's OK for W3C to create a (snapshot) spec that W3C patent policy 
> applies to.  I can see why that may be of some use if the work can't 
> move back into W3C, but it seems like giving up on that.  I'd need to 
> look at this more carefully, but I'm not sure why we'd join that WG.  
> If the work is in the WHATWG then we could go do it in the WHATWG and 
> make recommendations directly there.  So, the WG becomes the 
> equivalent of signing the FSA in the WHATWG CG, something people can 
> already choose to do I assume. 

This is not how I read Sam's proposal.

In Process2014, after FPWD, there is no structure telling a WG how to 
get to CR - only a list of a set of things that they must do before 
getting to CR.

Sam's proposal requires that on the way to CR, this effort must gain 
wide review, formally address issues, record and report Formal 
Objections, etc.  A sponsoring WG, thus, has all of the ability to 
address this document as it does in any other document.  Sam is just 
suggesting a particular method to address issues.

Sam's blog post also talks to the fact that there could be disagreements 
between a W3C WG weighing in on the document and the WHATWG.  He makes 
clear that if there is a hard disagreement that forking is possible.  He 
makes equally clear that it is desirable for everyone to work hard to 
resolve any such dispute.

In short Process2014 deliberately adds flexibility on how to get to CR.  
Sam is just choosing one instantiation which works well for documents 
where we want to collaborate with the WHATWG.

Received on Saturday, 22 November 2014 23:32:56 UTC