W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Ways forward for: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:45:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4B6D01E2.5080005@digitalbazaar.com>
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
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 05:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC