- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:23:29 -0500
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: www-archive@w3.org
Recently, a question was asked of people about making the W3C the place for Web Standards[1]. However, also recently, activity in the HTML WG has virtually come to a standstill. It seems to me, how the HTML WG progresses from this point on has a direct bearing on whether the W3C can effectively manage web standards efforts in the future. If the W3C can't effectively manage HTML, which is the foundation for the web, how can it manage other web standards now, and in the future? Consider the following: There are currently 374 bugs filed against the HTML WG documents, most against the HTML5 spec. Of these, 268 bugs are over 30 days old[2]. In the last 30 days, only 4 bugs have been closed out [3], and only 28 bugs have had some editor action[4]. There are currently 23 open issues[5]. Some issues have passed deadlines months ago with no resolution, and no idea when any resolution is forthcoming. Several have had a surveys and are awaiting co-chair decision. Some of the surveys were given almost three months ago, and again, no deadline is given when resolution can be expected. Several of the issues have had change proposals supplied months ago, and are still waiting surveys. Again, no deadlines, no idea when these items will progress. Issues in the Issue list seem to be resolved on an average of about 3-4 a month. At the same time, there is a good likelihood that when many of the outstanding bugs finally get addressed by editors, several could end up as issues. With an estimated issue resolution rate of about 3-4 a month (being liberal with my estimates), issues will prevent any progress of the HTML5 specification for a minimum of several months, most likely into 2011. And a 2011 estimation is only viable if the number of new issues is kept to a minimum. In the meantime, several members of the group, including those who have outstanding tasks in the HTML WG, are now participating in another specification effort with the IETF[6]. This isn't a problem, except for the fact that the ongoing work in the IETF HYBI group could be potentially blocking ongoing work in the HTML WG, because at least two of the people (Maciej Stachowiak and Ian Hickson) are in the HTML WG's issue resolution critical path. In particular, Ian Hickson is the only editor for the HTML5 specification, and as such, if his time is being preempted by work elsewhere, the HTML WG should be strongly encouraged to add new editors. Otherwise, the current backlog of bugs may never be resolved--or will be resolved haphazardly, with undo haste and lack of consideration. Yes, people do have lives outside of any of these group's efforts. No one denies this. But if people feel they can not meet the requirements demanded of them for their positions--such as HTML5 editor, or HTML WG co-chair--they should consider whether they can continue in the role, or whether it would be better to have those with more time take up the position. The W3C HTML WG cannot continue at the current pace--not if there is to be even the most remote chance for the HTML5 to progress this year, as per the group's current charter and estimated timelines. Not if the W3C wants to be considered _the_ place for web standards in the future. I have submitted a bug listing my concerns about the timeliness of the HTML WG effort, but have not yet received a response[7]. Thank you Shelley Powers [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results [2] http://w3.org/brief/MTkz [3] http://w3.org/brief/MTkw [4] http://w3.org/brief/MTkx [5] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html [6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/maillist.html [7] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10230
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 18:24:12 UTC