W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: HTML WG last call comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:29:37 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Stuart Williams" <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsgadrnajsmjzpq@viao-1.lan>

There is a big difference. We are not talking about dissent being  
overruled, which even the current process allows, we are talking about  
dissent not being reported, which is not allowed.

The disposition of comments for XLink lied: it claimed that the last call  
comments from the HTML WG had been replied to, which they hadn't (also not  
allowed by process). So the director was misled.

Worse yet, the transition request for XLink occurred *after* the decision  
had already been made, and was not sent until Friday evening; the  
announcement that it had become a Rec was made the following Monday  
morning, thus allowing no opportunity for anyone to say "wait a minute!".

Therefore XLink is not every bit as much a W3C Recommendation as HTML is.  
It fraudulently became a recommendation.

Steven Pemberton

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:27:08 -0500, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 10:41, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> > Thanks  for your earlier response to me.  I took the liberty of
>> > forwarding to the TAGs member-only list [1].
>> >
>> > You indicated the HTML-WGs need to see the proposed wording in  
>> context.
>> > Subsequento our F2F, the relevant section has been updated in our
>> > current editors draft and is available at [2] .
>> >
>> > We believe that the changes are responsive to HTML-WGs comment [3] and
>> > we would like to know, ASAP , whether the HTML-WG agrees.
>>
>> I am afraid not. They responded very strongly that it is not acceptable  
>> to
>> recommend a spec that has not reached consensus within W3C.
>
> How unfortunate.
>
> I wonder... is the HTML WG aware of the extent
> to which The Director overrulled oustanding dissent in the
> history of the development of HTML? HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.0
> were developed before W3C constrained itself to formally
> address dissent from outside Working Group, or even to
> record dissent on WG decisions. I can tell you,
> as the chair of the WG at that time, that we routinely
> dismissed dissenting comments without so much as a reply.
> In WG meetings, I routinely closed issues over the objection
> of a single member; The Director implicitly endorsed
> all this.
>
> So I gather the HTML WG considers it not acceptable
> to recommend HTML 3.2 nor HTML 4.0, since they reached
> W3C Recommendation status without consensus in the
> community.
>
> XLink started in a similar climate as HTML 4.0. I think
> W3C put more energy and policies regarding wider consensus as
> XLink developed, and by the time XLink became a Recommendation,
> the notion of formal objections was established, but
> still relatively new. Yes, there was outstanding dissent
> on XLink when it became a W3C Recommendation. That does
> not make it any less a W3C Recommendation.
>
> In sum, XLink is every bit as much a W3C Recommendation
> as HTML is.
>
>
>>  They object in
>> particular to the wording "[XLink] is an appropriate specification" and
>> "Designers of XML-based formats should consider using XLink".
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Steven Pemberton
>> On behalf of the HTML WG
>>
>> > Many thanks
>> >
>> > Stuart Williams
>> > On behalf of W3C TAG
>> > --
>> > [1]
>> >  
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396D55@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net
>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#xml-links
>> > [3] http://www.w3.org/mid/opse3b6givsmjzpq@viao-1.lan
>> >
>> > Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> (Apologies for lateness, due to laptop meltdown and concomitant  
>> backlog)
>> >>
>> >> The HTML WG has one comment on the architecture last call:
>> >>
>> >> "XLink is an appropriate specification for representing links in
>> >> hypertext  XML applications."
>> >>
>> >> We demur. XLink was issued without reaching consensus, and did not
>> >> follow  due W3C process. This makes it an inappropriate specification
>> >> for  underpinning the Web architecture until such time as consensus  
>> has
>> >> been  achieved.
>> >>
>> >> Best wishes,
>> >>
>> >> Steven Pemberton
>> >> For the HTML WG
>> >>
>> >
>> >
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 19:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:48 UTC