Re: Media types for XHTML 1.x document

[adding back www-archive]

On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 16:33 +1300, Dean Edridge wrote:
> > Speaking from the W3C Process point of view, you're
> > talking about a Working Group Note here and the Working Group isn't
> > obligated to update the document any further.
> 
> I strongly disagree, they *are* obligated to update the document as I 
> requested.

They are NOT obligated. The Group is expected to address issues but [1]
doesn't say anything about formally addressing them in order to publish.
In other words, neither you or I have the authority to prevent a Working
Group from publishing the Note if they follow the W3C Process and also
follow their charters. The Director authorized the publication of the
first Working Group Draft that lead to this Note and I cannot override
that. Now, you can argue that the Process and the charters are bogus
because it allows a Group to publish a Note under those conditions but
that won't change the fact that you and I are still bound by the rules
in the meantime.

> > However, I sense that the
> > technical concerns that you're raising will need indeed some
> > coordination between the HTML and XHTML2 Working Groups.
> >   
> 
> I don't believe that that is correct Philippe, there is no need to 
> discuss anything between the two working groups, Steven is aware that 
> the HTML WG has been developing XHTML. All they need to do to remove my 
> objections, is do what I have asked, and that is to indicate in the 
> *title* and in the *URL* that the document only relates to XHTML1.x I 
> don't see what's so unreasonable about that.

Again, whether you or I have objections over the document doesn't enter
into considerations here. Just taking the high ground here and saying
that they are obligated to update the document is not going to help your
case at all either.

The real issue here is about who should be in charge of defining what
text/html and application/xhtml+xml are. And we have two groups that are
in charge of that, which is bogus and harmful given the divergences of
opinions between the two Groups. That's the part that I am interested in
fixing in the upcoming months. It requires significant changes in the
charters and all options are open, including closing down one of the
Groups if necessary. It will have an impact on the Note you're pointing
to and also possibly on the series of HTML and XHTML recommendations
past, present and future. Several individuals, including Dan Connolly or
company representatives, have been asking me to deal with the problem
for the last 6 months at least. While I won't be the one making the
final decision, I can certainly push into a direction and I didn't get
to the bottom of the problem yet.

So, going back to your technical issue, Steven kindly responded to you
that they'll look at your issue again, which is I believe what you were
interested in originally. It doesn't mean that they'll do the change
you're proposing but they'll look at it at least. That's the best I can
offer to you at the moment.

Philippe

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=wg-note-tr

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 16:21:12 UTC