W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2012

Re: example: the HTML WG process is not working

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:52:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4F7317AC.4070906@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 3/28/2012 9:29 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Jeff,
> Le 28 mars 2012 à 09:10, Jeff Jaffe a écrit :
>> What are the alternatives?  The editor is entitled to his opinion if he disagrees.  And the WG is entitled to their opinion if they disagree with the editor.
> CONTEXT: I'm not taking side. I'm just interested by my impression of
> the social dynamic at play.
> I do not think it is really about the editor, Ian Hickson here.
> Let's rewind a bit the historical tape. :)
> The old:HTMLWG was left by the browser vendors because the feedback
> on fixing HTML4 was not listened (A bigger part of the W3C Membership
> had decided to move on XHTML work). So the browser vendors which were
> interested in fixing the issues they had in their environment created
> what became the WHATWG. Unfortunate but common in social communities.
> At a point the old:HTMLWG was doing practical work on XHTML2 and XForms
> but in a way which was a kind of fork, in a parallel universe with
> people with different priorities.
> Fast-forward to now.
> It is happening again. The new:HTMLWG is being more and more abandoned
> if not totally abandoned by the participation of browser vendors because
> of different visions on what should be HTML. The difference is that
> people are still in the WG, but they mostly do not really participate.
> Or more exactly the participation is on arguing more than looking for
> common solutions. People trying to assess they are right, more than "how
> do we improve this, this is a cool idea, let's do better."  People from
> browser vendors feel they will have more fruitful contributions outside
> of the new:HTMLWG. So we end up with a specification which  is not bad
> but is indeed drifting away from what one powerful part of the community
> wants.

Yes, we work some of these issues on a regular basis.  In terms of 
browser vendor support for the WG, I note that two of the three chairs 
and the editor are from three different browser vendors.  But, sure, we 
can do better.

As I said to Steve, I didn't understand what was being recommended.

> We can also note that /new:HTMLWG/ is mainly discussing about accessibility
> issues, DRM, etc. Topics which are already heavy per se.
> On the other hand, to note, that a lot of cool stuff is happening in WebApps
> WG and DOM WG. People have disagreement sometimes but there is a very active
> participation.
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 13:53:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:20 UTC