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

Re: Request for the WHATWG draft to converge with the W3C draft

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: annevk@opera.com, brendan@mozilla.com, dbaron@mozilla.com, hyatt@apple.com, dean.edwards@gmail.com, howcome@opera.com, jst@mozilla.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006261816240.22642@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> You misinterpret the third option, which I will repeat here:
> > (3) that the differences listed in the WHATWG draft be updated in two ways:
> > (a) to describe why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this
> > particular case
> > (b) to modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the
> > reasons given in Lachlan's proposal
> This is referring to the following description of the difference:
> > A politically-incorrect example regarding plugins is not present in
> > the W3C version due to the W3C HTML working group not wanting the
> > examples to be quite so brutally honest, as documented in this working
> > group decision from June 2010.
> This text does not describe either why the WHATWG felt it necessary to 
> diverge in this particular case

The WHATWG didn't feel it necessary to diverge here; the HTMLWG did. There 
was no decision in the WHATWG to diverge -- the decision was yours, in the 
HTMLWG. The example that isn't present in the HTMLWG is the same example 
that was present in the WHATWG spec months ago, before the HTMLWG decided 
that it was too politically incorrect to include in a W3C document, and 
should be removed and replaced with another one. The other one was fine, 
and the WHATWG added that one too, to avoid undue convergence, but the 
other example was just left as it was originally written before the HTMLWG 
started examining that section; there was no decision to do anything to it.

There are several examples that aren't in the HTMLWG spec but are in the 
WHATWG spec, for various reasons -- W3C publication policies, decisions to 
remove the examples by the HTMLWG that were not made by the WHATWG, etc. 
More examples is better than fewer examples. The best way to converge 
here, if you think that having the same list of examples in both specs is 
the best way forward, would be for the HTMLWG to not remove examples from 
its spec.

> nor does it accurately reflect the rationale as present in Lachlan's 
> proposal.

Lachlan's rationale is not the real rationale for the change: it argues 
for what the WHATWG spec says (have two examples), not what the HTMLWG 
spec says (not mention proprietariness). I can't make the WHATWG version 
say that the rationale is something that doesn't make any sense. That 
would be worse than saying that the W3C HTML WG makes political decisions; 
it would be saying that the W3C HTML WG makes decisions that contradict 
the very rationales it says that it is making them for.

> My subsequent request is very specific: either apply Lachlan's change in 
> a way that does not cause the documents to diverge

If you want a change to the WHATWG version of the specifications, please 
provide rationale that argues for that change. So far the only rationale 
you have provided convincingly argues for keeping both examples. Unless 
informed otherwise by the WHATWG charter members, I will assume that in 
the absence of a good technical reason, the example should remain in the 
WHATWG specifications.

> present new information to cause the decision to reopen

I'm not aware of any further new information.

> or document the reason why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in 
> this particular case

The WHATWG didn't diverge in this case, the HTMLWG did.

> and to modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the 
> reasons given in Lachlan's proposal.

The reasons in Lachlan's proposal argue for what the WHATWG spec has and 
not what the HTMLWG spec has, so saying that that is the reason for the 
_HTMLWG_ spec to be the way it is would be illogical.

> As you point out, there is a fourth option: appeal the chair's decision.

By process of elimination, this would appear to be the only option left. 
If you believe that not having the same examples in both specs is a 
serious problem, then I recommend following this course of action. 
Personally, I do not think that consistency in the examples is any more 
important than consistency in the style sheets, so I have no intention of 
persuing this further.
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 18:37:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:50 UTC