Re: [w3c/charter-html] Charter must state a reason when duplicating work done elsewhere (#139)

I tend to find Florian's reasoning fairly compelling here, W3C could be doing a better job reducing confusion over duplicated work. In particular:

@frivoal wrote:
> So we not only need to have "at least one reason", we need to be explicit about what we're after, so as to make sure that the actions taken are not in conflict with that.

And we also need to measure that supposed benefit of that one reason & what we're after, and whether that is worth the costs of doing so (e.g. costs of W3C resources, time, etc., costs of introducing/continuing/fueling confusion among web developers etc.).

I'm pretty convinced at this point that the answer is no, in general it is not worth it to have WPWG duplicate work being done in W3C. The only potential exception I'm unsure about is HTML, for the reasons that @stevefaulkner provides, and frankly because so much divergence has occurred there (some good, some bad, like old contentious debates being relitigated), it's not clear how to even attempt a path towards reconvergence with HTML.

@stevefaulkner wrote:

> The centre of gravity for accessibility related aspects of the web platform, including implementation in browsers, continues to be at the W3C. It is still also the place where stakeholders with a commitment to accessibility, regardless of their affiliation with browser vendors, get a seat at the table.

I appreciate this and accept it is not to be underestimated.

To me this signals that all versions of HTML could/would benefit from a delta document from HTML that specifically adds/patches accessibility related items, a "W3C HTML Accessibility" spec as it were. The advantage of such a spec is that such accessibility enhancements would get properly highlighted rather buried in the W3C's copy of HTML 5.x which browser implementers in general don't bother reading. If there was a separate "W3C HTML Accessibility" spec that worked as a delta from WHATWG HTML, I'm guessing more browser implementers might read that to see what the W3C accessibility consensus has documented. This is just floating an idea to stir thinking, not a concrete proposal, and no response is needed.



I agree with @frivoal's "Proposed solution" in his opening description, and would add:
* Each spec that is duplicating work that is happening at WHATWG explicitly note that in the charter and provide the *specific* reason(s) explaining why and what the benefits are of W3C doing so for *that spec*, and how those benefits outweigh the confusion generated by duplicating a spec actively maintained elsewhere.

If a charter cannot provide such reasons for working on a spec, especially one where another body is already doing maintenance on it, that spec should not be in the charter's scope.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-301916215