Re: Title of the HTML5 document

On May 24, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> How about just making the title "HTML 5", as long ago agreed by the
>> group? Then we won't need to spend time arguing about the subtitle.
>
> Roy said he had a serious problem with the document which would
> be resolved by changing the title.

I find Roy's proposed title misleading as to the contents of the spec,  
as well as objectionable on the grounds that it tries to disparage the  
spec. I feel the same way about your proposed title. I expect others  
feel similarly, so making either of those changes would not increase  
the degree of consensus.

I can't stop anyone from suggesting other title possibilities, and  
some option may even be better than what we have currently. But I  
don't think it is worth spending a lot of time on it. Ultimately it is  
a cosmetic issue, so long as the title is not seriously misleading.

It's true that some have claimed that they would have less objection  
to the contents of the spec if the title were changed, but I don't  
think every title change request along these lines needs to be taken  
seriously. For example, if someone suggested they would no longer  
object to the spec if it were titled "HTML5: A Filthy Pack of Lies",  
then of course we should decline and take that suggestion as actually  
a backhanded way of criticizing the body of the spec. Similarly for  
"HTML5: A Spec for Only a Few Situations But Not Really the Real Spec".

While "Uniform Browser Behavior for the Web" is not quite in that  
category, it is suggested with the intent of denying that the spec is  
a proper spec for HTML version 5. Your title suggestion also appears  
to have that intent, backed as it is by arguments (incorrect in my  
view, but sincerely proffered on your part) that the spec is not a  
"Technical Specification" or a "traditional language spec". In fact,  
you seem to agree that the spec describes "HTML5: A Vocabulary and  
Associated APIs", but would like the subtitle to give a negative slant  
because the spec says "must" where you would prefer "is".

I think it would be a silly sort of compromise to publish the spec but  
try to make it describe itself as not a proper spec. So there is no  
point in considering suggestions in that vein.

> If your proposal to resolving this issue is to keep the title,
> then I'd say you weren't taking the issue, Roy's comments,
> or the process seriously.

The wording of the subtitle is not a technical issue, nor was Roy's  
objection to it grounded in technical arguments. Roy himself described  
his objections as editorial issues. Therefore, I think per W3C Process  
it would be fine to politely decline Roy's suggested change and move on.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 05:30:54 UTC