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

@michaelchampion:

> [this discussion, orthognal to the questions asked in this proposal to change the current charter, is] also an opportunity to incrementally clarify a point of much contention over the years …

It is unclear to me whether this question needs to be resolved *for this charter change*, which is to add two deliverables and split one out for administrative purposes. I guess that will become clear when the W3C members review the charter.

> … what value does W3C think it adds to the upstream WHATWG specs?

As far as I am concerned, the WHATWG spec for HTML is not upstream. It develops in parallel, under different procedures, with slightly different audiences. The editorial team, in particular, look to make sure we're not unconsciously breaking the web by introducing incompatible changes or failing to follow reality, and changes made first to W3C specs are, as applicable given the different approaches, taken into the WHATWG specs.

The same might be the case for e.g. ISO HTML (except they are so slow it's not a realistic case), and is the same as the fact that implementation - both in terms of browser support and HTML published to the Web - are effectively versions of HTML developing in parallel.

That said, I think there are a number of [values I outlined above](https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-303083958), and which I am aware of as variably important to different W3C members, in each case ranging from irrelevant to critical across a different subset of the membership whose motives I believe I understand.

-- 
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-303375909