- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:45:06 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Hi all, This is an attempt to momentarily separate myself from HTML WG, RDFa WG and WHATWG and look at this from an outsiders perspective. There's quite a bit of history here and at times, it's good to forget that history to try and look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes. Bottom line - I think Larry has a point. It's not clear whether or not the RDFa or Microdata work is currently a commitment (or ever will be a commitment) of the HTML WG. I don't know much about Canvas 2D, but I expect that these same arguments apply there as well. If what is being asserted about Canvas 2D is correct, and it was a WG decision to accept it as a work product of HTML WG, then it shouldn't be a big deal to get the charter changed and have it added to the deliverables. The charter could use a refresh - the current chairs aren't even listed on the charter. H:TML isn't listed in the charter. Similarly, if HTML WG is going to continue to publish WDs of Microdata and RDFa, it should probably be listed as work items, or in the very least, items of interest. Someone unfamiliar with the HTML WG mailing list traffic would have no idea that it's working on any of the four items listed above. Each one of these items would normally have at least a task force or even a WG assigned to it. One more thing to consider is whether or not other WGs are more appropriate places for the work to continue. Just like the Web APIs WG was chosen to continue Data storage and Networking APIs, perhaps we should consider if HTML WG is absorbing too much work. I believe this is happening as a result of being at the receiving end of WHAT WG's monolithic draft (not a value statement or judgement - just as statement of how things are setup at the moment). So a couple of ways forward: * Update the charter to include a number of new work items that the WG has decided to work on. * Update the charter with new work items, but delegate responsibility on completing those items to joint task forces or WGs that are already setup to deal with the work. * Don't update the charter, but put out calls to the AC to see if new joint task forces or WGs should be setup for 2D Canvas, and Microdata. If there is no interest in starting a new TF or WG for the work, it may be a good indicator of whether or not the work should continue to be of interest at the W3C. I can volunteer to propose edits to the HTML WG charter if nobody else has the time to do it. Just thinking out loud... seeing if this triggers any other ideas on potential compromises that could move us forward (and put more of a focus on the technical work). -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.2.1 Released - Video and Data Sales http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/01/31/bitmunk-3-2-1/
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 05:45:44 UTC