Re: HTML WG charter review, tracking feedback

On Nov 22, 2006, at 1:05 PM, John Boyer wrote:

> Regarding the rather lengthy milestone periods being suggested in  
> some recent feedback, I would interpret those as just a general  
> uneasiness about everyone's ability to compromise.  But if we can  
> put personal vested interests on the side and focus on innovating  
> in ways that achieve the essential requirement that all of us have,  
> which is to make life better for content authors and processor  
> implementers, then it should indeed be possible to produce  
> *something* useful by 2009.  Basically, we have to be more  
> optimistic because development by a community works all the time,  
> and it can work for the W3C too.

I do not think lengthy milestone periods have been proposed because  
of lack of faith in ability to compromise.

They have been proposed because some of us want to take W3C REC  
status as seriously as the IETF takes "Internet Standard" status.  
Specifically this means insisting on significant evidence of wide,  
interoperable deployment. It means having a thorough, comprehensive  
test suite and testing that shows interoperability among a number of  
serious implementations. And consequently, it means willingness to  
let standards sit in an intermediate state like LC or CR for a long  
time if they are not truly ready, rather than rushing a spec with  
serious deficiencies to REC status.

Given the importance of HTML to the internet today, I think it  
deserves no less.


Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 22:51:17 UTC