Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: Update on the relationship between the WHATWG HTML living standard and the W3C HTML5 specification

Hi Ian,

>(responding on www-archive since, as mentioned in the original e-mail, the
>WHATWG list is for technical discussions, not political ones)

I wasn't aiming to pollute the technical sanctity of the WHATWG mailing
list with political discussion, but felt it reasonable to respond on list
as it was you who had made political statements to the list in the first
place. And sure I understand it is your policy to keep the flow of
political messages flowing one way on the the WHATWG list which is a great
method to for you to broadcast your political statements while suppressing
discussion of same.

> What I meant was just that the highest priority in the WHATWG spec is in
> making a spec that describes what is implemented, rather than what anyone
> wishes was implemented.

and a laudable goal, which i agree with, but it hasn't been shown that the
goal of the HTML WG is different from this.


>To the extent that it contradicts the WHATWG spec, that document's
> requirements are, IMHO, largely bogus.

Your humble opinion has no special status except in a document you control.
So without any data or analysis to back up your opinion I must respectfully
disagree.

>You can claim whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. :-)

The claim is backed up by research,data and implementation realities,these
speak for themselves. You can deny them all you like, but it doesn't
undermine their basis in reality.


I note that you didn't respond to the gaping hole in the WHATWG's attempt
at a canonical description of HTML i.e. the specification of HTML
accessibility implementation in browsers, but I guess sometimes its easier
to  sidestep inconvenient truths.


regards
SteveF

On 20 July 2012 21:18, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> (responding on www-archive since, as mentioned in the original e-mail, the
> WHATWG list is for technical discussions, not political ones)
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> >
> > I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
> >
> > "The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
> > canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
> >
> > The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical appears to imply
> > that the requirements and advice contained within HTML the living
> > standard is more correct than what is in the HTML5 specification.
>
> What I meant was just that the highest priority in the WHATWG spec is in
> making a spec that describes what is implemented, rather than what anyone
> wishes was implemented.
>
>
> > I do not consider this to be wholly that case, in particular in regards
> to
> > author level conformance requirements and advice, where the HTML standard
> > has no special claim to authority
>
> No Web tech spec has any special claim to authority on any topic.
>
>
> > it is not the domain of browser vendors to decide what is good authoring
> > practise and any authoring requirements that go beyond implementation
> > realities.
>
> Sure.
>
>
> > Neither HTML5 in its current form or HTML the living standard can claim
> > to be a canonical description
>
> ...of anything. Sure. I agree. We can only intend to create the canonical
> description, as I said; we can't legitimately claim to _be_ it, that's
> something people have to judge for themselves based on the quality of the
> resulting specifications and how useful they are.
>
>
> > [...] of author conformance requirements for the provision of text
> > alternatives, as there is another document in existence also published
> > by the W3C that provides normative requirements for the
> > subject: http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>
> To the extent that it contradicts the WHATWG spec, that document's
> requirements are, IMHO, largely bogus.
>
>
> > The HTML standard contradicts the HTML5 specification (or vice versa) on
> > a number of author conformance requirements and advisory techniques,
> > including use of tables, use of ARIA and use of the title attribute.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> > In respect to those author related requirements mentioned above the
> > HTML5 specification can currently claim to be contain a more accurate
> > set of requirements and advice, that takes into account current
> > implementation realities, thus providing author with more practical
> > advice and thus end users with a better experience.
>
> You can claim whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. :-)
>
>
> > All in all I do not agree with your claim of the HTML living standard
> > being canonical.
>
> What I described was our goal, or intent; what we are focused on writing.
> Whether we succeed or not is for others to determine.
>
>
> > It is unfortunately the case that we now have at least 2 specifications;
> > HTML5 and the living standard neither of which can claim to be canonical
> > description of HTML for stakeholders other than browser vendors.
>
> That's been the case for some time.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html