Re: w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]

much snipped

 

Ian wrote:

 

>- the W3C continues to fork our work (especially disrespectful)
 
> - not allowing people to easily fork W3C specs if they think the W3C is 
   misguided
 

 

In regards to the HTML spec, it's not just your work, HTML existed before
you, and  work on HTML has continued after you left the editorship of the
HTML spec at the W3C. 

I have never seen any public agreement or discussion that work on HTML
*would not* continue at the W3C after your departure or any arguments that
it must be started from scratch. If you can cite any such statements I would
be most grateful.

While much of what you do is respected and has general agreement, some does
not, unfortunately the WHATWG process is not as inclusive as the W3C
process. For this reason myself and others while using your work on HTML as
a basis, we edit it to improve it in areas where we think the WHATWG HTML
spec is misguided in respect to authors, users and implementers.

 

If you think that the W3C is wrong in not allowing  "people to easily fork
W3C specs",  but hold the WHATWG up as an example of the opposite,
characterising the work on HTML at the W3C as 'disrespectful' lacks
credence.

 

As I have stated previously in regards to HTML:

Neither the whatwg nor w3c has the support of all the various stakeholders
and it's not something that can be claimed/mandated or argued from
authority. The best we can do is keep the differences to a minimum.

 

Steve Faulkner

TPG Distinguished Accessibility Engineer

-

Co-editor  <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> HTML 5.1