Forwarding to www-archive so these comments are public, but without spamming a bunch of lists that people actually subscribe to. -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
attached mail follows:
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review: HTML 5.1 is W3C Proposed Recommendation' (Advisory Committee) for Mozilla Foundation by David Baron. The reviewer abstained from the review of "HTML 5.1". Additional comments about the specification: If the new option ("Does not support this ... for the reasons cited in comments but is not raising a Formal Objection") described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015OctDec/0014.html were available for PR reviews in addition to charter reviews, I would have used it here. One editorial fix that would be good to see is a list of changes relative to the HTML 5.0 recommendation, as requested in https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/592 . It sounds like that may be in progress. Our broader concerns are in two areas: (1) that some of the changes made in the development of this specification were about reversing (relative to HTML 5.0) position on previously controversial topics with only a small portion of the previous participants in the room. In other words, the group has spent a lot of energy relitigating past fights, and less energy on major improvements to the Web. (However, it doesn't seem that the environment in the working group has built a culture that attracts participants who want to do the latter.) One example of this problem was the longdesc changes, which were reverted in https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507 . Another example, still remaining, is the re-addition of the rev attribute, as explained in https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/256#issuecomment-253674835 . It would be good to see this addition reverted. (2) There have been other higher-level problems with the operation of the group, some of which were described in https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 . One that remains particularly bothersome is the conversion of the entire specification to a different preprocessing system in a way that was not reviewable by others (multiple months of work landing as a single commit in version control). This change introduced errors that I'm told are still being discovered, and makes it harder for the W3C's copy of the specification to take changes from the WHATWG's copy. (The lack of public discussion prior to any of these changes is also quite problematic.) Given these issues, it remains the case that Mozilla engineers look towards the WHATWG copy of the specification both for what to implement and for where to work on developing new Web features that belong in the HTML specification. The reviewer's organization: - produces products addressed by this specification Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/html51/ until 2016-10-13. Regards, The Automatic WBS MailerReceived on Friday, 14 October 2016 04:04:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:36 UTC