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

On 5/17/2017 1:33 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
>
> @jeffjaffe <https://github.com/jeffjaffe> asked:
>
>     What would you say about work recently started in W3C and forked
>     to the WHATWG?
>
> What are you referring to?
>

The two most recent examples would be Shadow DOM and Custom Elements.

> Does “W3C” include Community Groups?
>
> My thoughts on this thread:
>
>  *
>
>     I hope the charter is explicit about work it plans to do that is
>     downstream from WHATWG. That certainly includes HTML and DOM,
>     possibly others.
>
>  *
>
>     I agree with @frivoal <https://github.com/frivoal> and others that
>     the charter should be clear about W3C’s value add. @LJWatson
>     <https://github.com/ljwatson> 's text it a good start (but needs
>     to mention WHATWG e.g. “It also enhances the HTML Living Standard 
>     with contributions from a broad range of stakeholders ….”)
>
>  *
>
>     I like @tantek <https://github.com/tantek> 's idea of refactoring
>     the HTML accessibility work so that it extends / “deltas” the HTML
>     Living Standard to better meet accessibility (and perhaps other
>     “horizontal”) criteria. I would not want to hold up spinning off
>     the Service Worker WG until that can be done, but it’s an idea to
>     seriously explore for the next recharter.
>
> As for the WHATWG relationship, I agree with @jeffjaffe 
> <https://github.com/jeffjaffe> that it should be possible to re-build 
> some sort of partnership, but the first move is mutual trust-building. 
> W3C might feel that HTML and DOM are “theirs” because they originated 
> at W3C, but WHATWG feels that W3C let them rot from lack of 
> maintenance (or outright rejection in the case of HTML circa 2004) and 
> they deserve respect for revitalizing them as Living Standards. I 
> definitely understand Steve’s concerns about “ the priorities and 
> ideological orientations of the editors of the WHATWG spec are 
> different to mine” and “ W3C… 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”. But it’s 
> worth noting WHATWG has become less “ideological” recently, and has 
> published code of conduct https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct 
> and work mode guidelines https://whatwg.org/working-mode that imply 
> some of @stevefaulkner <https://github.com/stevefaulkner> 's concerns 
> have been recognized and addressed.
>
> Bottom line: I believe that it would be a respectful gesture to WHATWG 
> for the WP WG charter to be explicit that some of its work is 
> downstream from various Living Standards, and be clear about the value 
> W3C proposes to add (patent commitments, wider review, and especially 
> accessibility improvements).
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-302167789>, 
> or mute the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFN22vqRwEQTQRDU7tNg0RN4PVRr8oXSks5r6y-EgaJpZM4Nb6X5>.
>



-- 
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-302527342