- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:54:15 -0800
- To: www-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20050316215415.GB21309@ridley.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2005-03-16 10:26 -0800, John Boyer wrote: > In essence, the WHAT-WG approach is a band-aid solution created by > people who are not very familiar with the needs of forms applications. The needs of forms applications in what context? On the Web? Or on “Intranets”? > Do they support the hijacking of the W3C process for bringing the > web to its full potential by supporting a rogue faction of > *W3C members* who do not participate in the relevant working groups? I think statements like this come from a misconception about what the W3C is. The W3C is a consortium of member companies. There is nothing in the W3C process to ensure that what the W3C does is designed specifically for the Web (certainly nothing that does so effectively, anyway). If the W3C process ensured that things were designed for the Web, then: * There would need to be much less incompatibility between standards. (For example, SVG couldn't rewrite CSS, XForms couldn't be incompatible with the existing HTTP content negotiation regime without coming up with a reasonable alternative before reaching REC, etc.) This requires producing fewer standards and producing them more slowly. * There would be more attention paid to how the Web would migrate to the new standards. For example, XHTML 1.0 (first edition) would have defined when a user-agent should use XML rules [1] for parsing XML, and preferably in a way that would have allowed migration to XML within the text/html MIME type, which would have allowed the Web to switch to using XML for HTML. * Most importantly, working groups would have to take the candidate recommendation (CR) phase more seriously. In particular, many more test cases would be needed, and for an implementation to count as interoperable for the purpose of exiting CR, it would have to correctly implement (potentially via plugins) all previous Web technologies (both correctly according to the test suites and in a way that is usable on the Web). This would be needed to ensure that the various recommendations are compatible with each other. (I'd claim that if the W3C worked this way, every W3C recommendation should still be in CR except for PNG, HTML 3.2, and XML 1.0. But if these stricter CR requirements existed years ago, I'm sure many more would have met them by now.) But the fact is, there's much more going on in the W3C than just the Web, and those members that produce Web clients can't possibly participate in all W3C working groups. There are just too many of them. And there's no way of telling which ones are relevant to the Web. -David [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jul/0084 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024 -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ > Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, The Mozilla Foundation
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 21:54:51 UTC