Re: [charter-html] Indicate relationship with the WHATWG (#112)

Dominic wrote:

> I think the W3C has a choice to make. Does it want to be an organization whose main value proposition is to take work that others have done, and re-brand it and pass it through its own value system and IPR pipeline? Or does it want to be a place to encourage original work and collaboration?

I don't think that captures the issue.  If you will permit me, let me back up provide some context, and then describe what I believe the real issue to be.

---

First a [post from Michael Champion](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Sep/0002.html):

> I strongly encourage W3C to charter WGs to standardize what works
> rather than to take a "if we standardize it they will implement"
> approach.

Compare it to a [similarly timed post from MS2GER](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JulSep/0326.html):

> Who do you propose will construct such a "what is implemented"
> specification, and what useful work would you have them drop for it?

---

Oversimplifying and overgeneralizing, the W3C is, on average, interested in documenting the web as it exists.  By contrast, the WHATWG is, on average, interested in documenting the web as they would like it to be.

There is plenty wrong with that generalization.  After all, given how screwed up the web is, you can't document how it exists without being very creative.  And the WHATWG won't accept anything that breaks the web so there are pretty severe limits to the amount of creativity liberties that one can take.

But that aside, I'm convinced that this difference in approach underlies most of the differences between the two organizations.  And it is fair to observe that this difference shows up considerably more in stable specifications (like HTML and URL) and considerably less so in new specs (like Fetch and Streams).

---

For my part, I think the W3C needs to start with trying to answer MS2GER's question before it tries to answer yours (Dominic's).

I came to this conclusion the hard way.  I tried to work on a a "what is implemented" version of the URL specification (as a user and a producer of content but not a browser implementer, I understandably am more interested in interop than futures), and did so with the explicit encouragement of individuals that worked for multiple browser vendors.  Only to find out that implementers were not interested in focusing on that problem.

Meanwhile, work continues on the URL specification at the WHATWG, mostly defining and refining new APIs.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/112#issuecomment-141850185