Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Anne van Kesteren]

It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> I'm still considering between two different endings:
>
> ...

Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG.


> =
>
> One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media
> standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering
> many lower-level media technologies. ...

Was this included? Since you mentioned endings before you got to this.
This is also a problem of sorts with other work the W3C is doing,
where they charter work on high-level APIs without having sorted or
planning to sort out the protocol, e.g., the Presentation API.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Jonas Sicking]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
>> > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we
>> > should do.
>> >
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea. (Even if we're
>> the only Member raising a formal objection,
>>
>
> I understand why it's not great, however, could you follow-up with specific
> reasons why it's "terrible"?

The HTML WG has historically has contained so much noise that next to
all productive contributors has left the group, leading to the being
unable to create almost any useful contributions to HTML5. This has
been such a big problem that the WGs future existence has been called
into question.

The WebApps WG is working very well and produce a large number of
highly successful and widely adopted specifications that has been very
good for the web.

The proposal here is to merge these two groups. I see no reason to
believe that the noise that exists in the HTML WG would not have the
same effect in this new WG.

I.e. the WebApps WG might become as unproductive as the HTML WG has been.

That would be terrible for the web.

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[smaug]

On 09/11/2015 04:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote:

On Tuesday 2015-09-08 17:33 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote:

Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these
proposed charters.

If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed
Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the
opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla's response to these
charters.


Here are the comments I have so far (Web Platform charter first,
then timed media).

The deadline for comments is in about 2 hours.  I'll submit these
tentatively, but can revise if I get feedback quickly.  (Sorry for
not gathering them sooner.)

-David

=

We are very concerned that the merger of HTML work into the functional
WebApps group might harm the ability of the work happening in WebApps to
continue to make progress as well as it currently does.  While a number
of people within Mozilla think we should formally object to this merger
because of the risk to work within WebApps, I am not making this a
formal objection.  However, I think the proper functioning of this group
needs to be carefully monitored, and the consortium needs to be prepared
to make changes quickly if problems occur.  And I think it would be
helpful if the HTML and WebApps mailing lists are *not* merged.



This sounds good to me.
After chatting with MikeSmith and ArtB I'm not so worried about the merge 
anymore.
(Apparently merge is a bit too strong word here even, it is more like taking 
the specification to the
WebApps WG, but trying to not take the rest of the baggage from HTML WG.)


-Olli




A charter that is working on many documents that are primarily developed
at the WHATWG should explicitly mention the WHATWG.  It should explain
how the relationship works, including satisfactorily explaining how
W3C's work on specifications that are rapidly evolving at the WHATWG
will not harm interoperability (presuming that the W3C work isn't just
completely ignored).

In particular, this concerns the following items of chartered work:
   * Quota Management API
   * Web Storage (2nd Edition)
   * DOM4
   * HTML
   * HTML Canvas 2D Context
   * Web Sockets API
   * XHR Level 1
   * Fetching resources
   * Streams API
   * URL
   * Web Workers
and the following items in the specification maintenance section:
   * CORS
   * DOM specifications
   * HTML 5.0
   * Progress Events
   * Server-sent Events
   * Web Storage
   * Web Messaging

One possible approach to this problem would be to duplicate the
technical work happening elsewhere on fewer or none of these
specifications.  However, given that I don't expect that to happen, the
charter still needs to explain the relationship between the technical
work happening at the WHATWG and the technical work (if any) happening
at the W3C.


The group should not be chartered to modularize the entire HTML
specification.  While specific documents that have value in being
separated, active editorship, and implementation interest are worth
separating, chartering a group to do full modularization of the HTML
specification feels both like busywork and like chartering work that is
too speculative and not properly incubated.  It also seems like it will
be harmful to interoperability since it proposes to modularize a
specification whose primary source is maintained elsewhere, at the
WHATWG.


The charter should not include work on HTML Imports.  We don't plan to
implement it for the reasons described in
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/
and believe that it will no longer be needed when JavaScript modules are
available.


The inclusion of "Robust Anchoring API" in the charter is suspicious
given that we haven't heard of it before.  It should probably be in an
incubation process before being a chartered work item.


We also don't think the working group should be chartered to work
on any items related to "Widgets"; this technology is no longer used.



I'm still considering between two different endings:

OPTION 1:

Note that while this response is not a formal objection, many of these
issues are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly
considered.

OPTION 2:

The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is
having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working
group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than ignoring the
existence of the WHATWG).  However, many of the other issues issues
raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly
considered.

=

One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media
standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering
many lower-level media technologies.  The W3C's Patent Policy only helps
with technology that the W3C develops, and not technology that it
references.  Given that, this group's charter should explicitly prefer
referencing technology that can be implemented and used without paying
royalties and 

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2015-09-11 09:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> > I'm still considering between two different endings:
> >
> > ...
> 
> Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG.

I used:

  # The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is
  # having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working
  # group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than nearly ignoring
  # the existence of the WHATWG).  However, many of the other issues issues
  # raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly
  # considered.

> > =
> >
> > One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media
> > standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering
> > many lower-level media technologies. ...
> 
> Was this included? Since you mentioned endings before you got to this.
> This is also a problem of sorts with other work the W3C is doing,
> where they charter work on high-level APIs without having sorted or
> planning to sort out the protocol, e.g., the Presentation API.

Yes.  Those were the comments on the timed media charter, though.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2015-09-11 00:46 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The HTML WG has historically has contained so much noise that next to
> all productive contributors has left the group, leading to the being
> unable to create almost any useful contributions to HTML5. This has
> been such a big problem that the WGs future existence has been called
> into question.
> 
> The WebApps WG is working very well and produce a large number of
> highly successful and widely adopted specifications that has been very
> good for the web.
> 
> The proposal here is to merge these two groups. I see no reason to
> believe that the noise that exists in the HTML WG would not have the
> same effect in this new WG.
> 
> I.e. the WebApps WG might become as unproductive as the HTML WG has been.
> 
> That would be terrible for the web.

I think the risk here is lower than you think because neither the
process, nor the chairs, nor the bulk of the members (the public
invited experts) of the HTML WG are being merged.  And I think
others are aware of the risks, and willing to stop bad actors.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Jonas Sicking]

If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we should
do.

/ Jonas

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:22 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen  
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
>> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>> >> >
>> >> >   Web Platform Working Group:
>> >> >   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
>> >> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
>> >
>> >
>> > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes
>> > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date.
>>
>> I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters
>> if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs.
>
> My one other thought here is that even if we formally object to the
> merging of the groups, I don't think we're likely to be able to win
> that argument at this stage.  Right now they've found chairs for the
> combined group, and I'm not aware of anyone else objecting to it.
>
> Part of the motivation for merging the groups was that nobody seemed
> to have any high-priority work to go in the HTML working group.
> There are a bunch of things people want to happen with existing
> HTML, but nobody seemed ready to step up to do any of it.  This
> means that there didn't seem to be a good motivation for chartering
> a new HTML working group on its own.  This also means that even if
> we objected to the merger, there wouldn't be a good alternative to
> the merger.
>
> I think it's worth expressing concern about the possibility that
> this will mess up the existing WebApps community.  And if bad things
> happen, we should raise them quickly and at a high level.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
>  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)
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Ms2ger]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here, 
> then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we
> should do.
> 

FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea. (Even if we're
the only Member raising a formal objection, I suspect Mike(TM) Smith
would be happy to amplify the message internally.)

OTOH, maybe we should just move the remaining useful specs in WebApps
to WHATWG; that'd solve the issue once and for all.

HTH
Ms2ger

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV8dZYAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n20z0H/0Wt4sj+zvpbS/GAPdY/S+wM
sF666a9pTZ9N6bdMu9o+vcVM9s1GvP3mra1DwZHe9kfCAklfrjIWrgZ0gjMmvB6e
q6reK1l4cbVGyoqCm9b32IqokHCe7wdT7Mm7m8HoSg3SdNCrWyHxfYDIshkO15aw
1xTHwamLDXmlDt94KU36EUdJAmu0j0pN8mvxiVG4FELWHAToGnlJ9l2ionoviqGl
/NoQeEASW0TXt1C7Prq7XArLm7mX669z/FPrMhFgHpwyGoxP11BQy0zpCcZzSdlH
dsh9yNyS4iabtHjbZVAbCbUxiNGC0ZhDoOmI3l1aYLO0uWPy4iyJRecW8iJonBU=
=DO5p
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
> >> >
> >> >   Web Platform Working Group:
> >> >   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> >> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
> >
> >
> > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes
> > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date.
> 
> I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters
> if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs.

My one other thought here is that even if we formally object to the
merging of the groups, I don't think we're likely to be able to win
that argument at this stage.  Right now they've found chairs for the
combined group, and I'm not aware of anyone else objecting to it.

Part of the motivation for merging the groups was that nobody seemed
to have any high-priority work to go in the HTML working group.
There are a bunch of things people want to happen with existing
HTML, but nobody seemed ready to step up to do any of it.  This
means that there didn't seem to be a good motivation for chartering
a new HTML working group on its own.  This also means that even if
we objected to the merger, there wouldn't be a good alternative to
the merger.

I think it's worth expressing concern about the possibility that
this will mess up the existing WebApps community.  And if bad things
happen, we should raise them quickly and at a high level.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Jonas Sicking]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
>> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>> >
>> >   Web Platform Working Group:
>> >   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
>> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
>
>
> tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes
> requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date.

I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters
if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs.

I agree that licenses are important. But I think having a working WG
is even more important.

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
> From everything I've seen, I don't expect much work around HTML beyond
> taking/merging bugfixes. I'm hoping with the new license that if W3C makes
> its own bugfixes that we find a way of propagating those bugfixes to WHATWG
> HTML as well.

FWIW, https://github.com/whatwg/html is under active development. It
took a while to switch from subversion to git, but we're going through
the backlog now and will also be adding new features. HTML being done
seems as a bogus assertion now as it was in January 2000 when XHTML
1.0 came out.

Also, I don't think the new license helps much since it's not compatible.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik  wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
> >> >
> >> >   Web Platform Working Group:
> >> >   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> >> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
> >
> >
> > tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes
> > requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date.
> 
> I absolutely think that we should only vote to approve these charters
> if they remove merging the WebApps and HTML WGs.
> 
> I agree that licenses are important. But I think having a working WG
> is even more important.

So part of the reason it's hard to justify having a separate HTML WG
right now is that there's really not very much in HTML that there's
active interest in working on.  If we want to argue for having a
separate HTML WG, I think we need a proposal (with consensus from
other implementors) on things that working group should work on that
are priorities for us to implement.  And I really don't think that
set of things exists.

I think much of the disfunction of the HTML WG isn't going to get
imported into the Web Platform WG since there won't be an import of
the 200+ "invited experts" who were allowed to invite themselves
into the HTML WG at its re-formation.

What would you think about a proposal to keep the separate mailing
lists that currently exist, but still have a single WG?

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

On Wednesday 2015-09-09 08:49 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Let me put it this way, how would you feel about integrating the HTML
> WG into the W3C Style WG?

If the HTML part of the WG were using asynchronous decision making
on a separate mailing list, I don't think it would be a big deal.
(It would be harder to integrate it into the synchronous decision
making model that's currently used in the CSS WG, though.)

> After all, one of the big problems with HTML
> lately has been adding HTML features that can't be styled by authors.

I don't think integrating the working groups would actually cause
anyone to work on that problem.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Tantek Çelik]

Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these
proposed charters.

If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed
Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the
opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla's response to these
charters.

Details below:


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
> >
> >   Web Platform Working Group:
> >   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html


tl;dr I think we should vote to approve these charters with changes
requested (but not required), based on the input in this thread to date.

One point that I feel has been missed.

Both these new charters make use of the new W3C Software & Document license
*for all specifications* they produce, which is a more liberal license than
the previous/current Web Apps and HTML WGs.

This is a good thing and a pretty big step towards our goal of getting more
CC0 / liberal licensing in W3C work that is produced, so work can be
independently iterated on, and merged back in etc.


Henri wrote:

This charter doesn't mention the WHATWG by name


There is one reference with perhaps a typo:

"
DOM Parsing and Serialization
A specification describing how to parse markup into a DOM, and
serialize for export, an HTML or XML fragment or document. This was
initially developed in the WHAT-WG.
"



> and merely says "The
> Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications from
> Community Groups, encourage open participation from Community Group
> members, and keep coordination with relevant Community Groups, all
> within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources."


> I'd like to know (preferably in the form of charter text) what the
> planned relationship with the WHATWG is supposed to be. Specifically,
> I don't expect this W3C group to be able to do a good job maintaining
> the features that are covered by actively maintained WHATWG specs
> except by having a fast, low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from
> the WHATWG.


I too would like to see more explicit mention of WHATWG in this charter.

Henri, could you propose suggested text for the charter that we can
contribute that mentions WHATWG explicitly? It sounds like you have
specific thoughts in mind for this and I'd like to capture that in the
charter.


Having the W3C modularize (what year is this? 1999 all
> over again?) a WHATWG-originating spec with editorship "Up for taking"
> looks like the opposite of what's needed to have a fast,
> low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from the WHATWG.

In general, modularizing the HTML spec for the sake of modularization
> seems useless busy-work. I think we should object to modularization
> for the sake of modularization.


Given Robin's departure I don't expect the modularization to move forward
until/unless another W3C editor shows up to attempt it - which I frankly
don't see happening anytime soon.

I think your suggestion is reasonable.

Henri, could you propose specific text to change/drop regarding the
existing mentions of "modularization" in the charter?




> If there a bits that have an editor
> lined up and the browser vendors want to do non-maintenance
> development in the relevant area, then it might make sense to split
> out something on a case-by-case basis.
>

I think this is a good way to focus such work and we should put that in our
suggested changes to the charter.


Furthermore, merging HTML into WebApps seems low-risk only if there
> isn't much work to do around HTML.


From everything I've seen, I don't expect much work around HTML beyond
taking/merging bugfixes. I'm hoping with the new license that if W3C makes
its own bugfixes that we find a way of propagating those bugfixes to WHATWG
HTML as well.



> Activity around HTML seems to
> attract disruptions that would be unfortunate compared to WebApps
> going on operating without those disruptions. Therefore, it seems
> unwise to generate activity (such as pushing text around in order to
> modularize) around HTML needlessly if WebApps is to take over HTML.
>

In general agreed. I also think there is important context to consider here
which is the set of chairs of the new WG.

IMO one of the problems with the disruptions that the HTMLWG attracted was
that the chairs did not deal with those disruptions swiftly.

Based on the proposed chairs for the new WG, I expect much more swift
handling of any disruptors.

In addition, the problem of disruptors is much better known, both in the
HTML / Web Apps areas, and all the way up to the AB, and you can bet that
many eyes will be watching for such behavior.

Note also that since the past HTMLWGs disruptions, the W3C has adopted more
anti-trolling type policies like their 

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[smaug]

On 08/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:

The W3C is proposing revised charters for:

   Web Platform Working Group:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

...


The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps
Groups***.


This seems like a terrible idea to me. The WebApps WG is very
functional and has had both a good discussion culture and a good track
record of creating functionality which has been adopted by browsers.

The HTML WG has been extremely dysfunctional. Both with a mailing list
which has attracted lots of noise and little useful discussion, and
has not managed to produce a lot of work which has affected what
browsers implement (most of the HTML5 stuff browsers implemented was
based off of Hixie's work in WHATWG).

Merging the two seems like a a very bad idea. It seems very likely
that it will disrupt the work happening in WebApps right now.

I'm very much for trying to find better ways for the work currently
happening in the HTML WG. But lets do that without changing the
WebApps WG for now.

I would personally prefer to put forward a formal objection to having
a merged group at this time.

/ Jonas





Fully agree with this all.



-Olli

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Henri Sivonen]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
 The W3C is proposing revised charters for:

   Web Platform Working Group:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

This charter doesn't mention the WHATWG by name and merely says The
Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications from
Community Groups, encourage open participation from Community Group
members, and keep coordination with relevant Community Groups, all
within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources.

I'd like to know (preferably in the form of charter text) what the
planned relationship with the WHATWG is supposed to be. Specifically,
I don't expect this W3C group to be able to do a good job maintaining
the features that are covered by actively maintained WHATWG specs
except by having a fast, low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from
the WHATWG. Having the W3C modularize (what year is this? 1999 all
over again?) a WHATWG-originating spec with editorship Up for taking
looks like the opposite of what's needed to have a fast,
low-bureaucracy way to import spec text from the WHATWG.

In general, modularizing the HTML spec for the sake of modularization
seems useless busy-work. I think we should object to modularization
for the sake of modularization. If there a bits that have an editor
lined up and the browser vendors want to do non-maintenance
development in the relevant area, then it might make sense to split
out something on a case-by-case basis.

Furthermore, merging HTML into WebApps seems low-risk only if there
isn't much work to do around HTML. Activity around HTML seems to
attract disruptions that would be unfortunate compared to WebApps
going on operating without those disruptions. Therefore, it seems
unwise to generate activity (such as pushing text around in order to
modularize) around HTML needlessly if WebApps is to take over HTML.

If an answer to the above is not already documented in public in a way
that allows the W3C to be held to their word, I think we should ask
about the above in our charter review comments.

This charter includes the maintenance responsibility for a number of
specs related to Widgets. Is this just a formality that pre-existing
specs have to belong to *some* WG or is the group actually expected to
spend time on maintaining Widgets? Does any vendor that can reasonably
be expected to contribute staff time to the WG actually ship W3C
Widgets or want to shift from whatever packaged Web app solution they
do ship to W3C Widgets? It seems like a bad idea to put the group's
time into Widgets if isn't the future we intend to pursue and, AFAICT,
it isn't.

   Timed Media Working Group
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

 The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps
 Groups***.

 The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
 in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.

What's the rationale for this split? I realize that the Media TF of
the HTML WG has been operating rather separately from the rest of the
HTML WG, but if the PP is the main value proposition of the W3C,
doesn't dividing work into smaller WGs undermine that value
proposition?

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
 On 09/08/15 19:59, L. David Baron wrote:
 The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
 in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.

 Do we see a risk here that this group will become captured by the
 promoters of DRM, more than was possible when it was done in the HTML WG?

I think moving EME into a group of its own would carry a major risk of
the group finding other DRM things to work on in order to perpetuate
its own existence. That's why I've cautioned against kicking EME out
of the HTML WG.

Since the proposed WG is not a DRM WG but the media WG with
substantial non-DRM work to do, I'm somewhat less worried about this
proposed WG than I would be about an EME-only WG.

As noted above, the media TF has already been operating relatively
separately. In that sense, this split doesn't involve much of a change
in terms of who subscribes to which mailing list and who follows which
meeting minutes. However, I don't see any benefit from having a Timed
Media Working Group compared to having a Timed Media Task Force of the
Web Platform Working Group and I can see potential for the separate
working group to have a downside.

The proposed Web Platform Working Group covers so many things that
it's obvious that no single participant is going to participate in the
development of all the deliverables. In that context, I think it's
weird to split MSE, EME and the video/audio parts of HTML5
maintenance into a separate WG.

I think it would be reasonable for us to record a comment along the
lines of the above paragraph and have Media 

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Chia-Hung Tai]

Hi, DBaron,
I would like to support the creation of Timed Media Working Group. Because
Media Capture is one of other deliverables, I would like to put the work[1]
to this working group.  Thanks.

[1]: http://chiahungtai.github.io/mediacapture-worker/

BR,
CTai

2015-08-10 2:59 GMT+08:00 L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org:

 The W3C is proposing revised charters for:

   Web Platform Working Group:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

   Timed Media Working Group
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

 The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps
 Groups***.

 The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
 in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.

 Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
 Thursday, September 10.

 Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
 say as part of this charter review.

 -David

 --
 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
  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)

 ___
 dev-platform mailing list
 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
 https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
 I guess I have mixed feelings about that.  It's advantageous to have
 WHATWG specifications published under the W3C patent policy by this
 working group, though that doesn't require technical work happening
 in W3C.

For most specifications all we got was significant developer confusion
and no coverage. Why would this group be different?


 It's also good to have Microsoft's participation, and that
 does require technical work.

In my experience I get about the same amount of feedback from
Microsoft. Not much, but not nothing either.


On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:51 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
 On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
 We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its
 current form.

 What's the rationale for opposing it?

We've stated that we don't want to implement it:

  https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Jonas Sicking]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
 The W3C is proposing revised charters for:

   Web Platform Working Group:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
...

 The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps
 Groups***.

This seems like a terrible idea to me. The WebApps WG is very
functional and has had both a good discussion culture and a good track
record of creating functionality which has been adopted by browsers.

The HTML WG has been extremely dysfunctional. Both with a mailing list
which has attracted lots of noise and little useful discussion, and
has not managed to produce a lot of work which has affected what
browsers implement (most of the HTML5 stuff browsers implemented was
based off of Hixie's work in WHATWG).

Merging the two seems like a a very bad idea. It seems very likely
that it will disrupt the work happening in WebApps right now.

I'm very much for trying to find better ways for the work currently
happening in the HTML WG. But lets do that without changing the
WebApps WG for now.

I would personally prefer to put forward a formal objection to having
a merged group at this time.

/ Jonas
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
   Web Platform Working Group:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html

 Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
 say as part of this charter review.

Jeff Jaffe told me at one point that Mozilla is not asking the W3C to
not duplicate work. Whenever that comes up my response is usually that
it does not matter either way, but I suppose we could give it a go.
From this charter, it seems that these items already have a home
elsewhere:

* Quota Management API
* Web Storage (2nd Edition)
* DOM4 [sic]
* HTML
* HTML Canvas 2D Context
* Web Sockets API
* XHR Level 1
* Fetching resources
* Streams API
* URL
* Web Workers

We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its
current form. Robust Anchoring API looks suspect. This charter is the
first time I hear of it and there's no draft available.

From the maintenance section these are duplicating effort:

* CORS
* DOM specifications
* HTML 5.0 [sic]
* Progress Events
* Server-sent Events
* Web Storage
* Web Messaging

We should probably also voice opposition to spending any kind of
resources on Widgets. That technology is no longer used.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[Gervase Markham]

On 09/08/15 19:59, L. David Baron wrote:
 The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
 in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.

Do we see a risk here that this group will become captured by the
promoters of DRM, more than was possible when it was done in the HTML WG?

Gerv

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

[L. David Baron]

The W3C is proposing revised charters for:

  Web Platform Working Group:
  http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

  Timed Media Working Group
  http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html

The Web Platform Working Group ***replaces the HTML and WebApps
Groups***.

The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.

Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Thursday, September 10.

Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 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)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform