Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
I believe the process to register a formal objection is to send an
email to this group, and label it as such. If there's another group I
should contact, please let me know.
I'll check into the process (and am copying Mike and Dan as they are
the W3C team contacts for this working group, but meanwhile three things:
1) This Mailing list is described as a "Miscellaneous. Mail-to-web
gateway" on http://lists.w3.org/. My understanding is that its
primary purpose is to allow a public URI to be associated with an
email that is sent. As a general rule, it is a great resource for
taking discussions "off-line" which may later need to be referred to.
In any case, I have seen this email, and will take it seriously.
Oops, then this is definitely the wrong place for this.
I'll resend to the HTML WG list, then.
2) The document in question is merely a Working Draft at this point
which means that it may be unstable and may not meet all of the
Working Group's needs at this point. As such, a formal objection
seems a bit premature, but only by a little bit as it makes perfect
sense to me for Formal Objections to block advancement to Last Call.
I'm not sure how we can move to Last Call.
Right now, we have no commitment one way or another from Microsoft on
most aspects of HTML 5. According to Ian, Microsoft has the strongest
veto of all. If it were to come in and just make a statement -- no we're
not supporting Canvas, or MathML, or SVG, or any number of other
elements--, just a statement of fact, then supposedly, *poof*, they're
gone.
Why call this HTML 5? We might as well call it the Sword of Damocles
HTML and be done with it.
As it is, we've already run into one vendor/one veto with the video
element. Oh, and that's another one that MS has not made a commitment
about.
3) I need to think more about what it means to have a formal objection
to process as opposed to a result. Formal objections to results, like
a document which contain features like video which do not lead to
interoperability due to a lack of specifying a common royalty-free
codec: that is something I can get my head around. A formal objection
to removing Canvas (I chose Canvas as that is an item that the working
group previously voted on and decided to include) in the unlikely
event that Microsoft makes a statement that they will never support
such a feature -- that too, I can understand. But a Formal Objection
to something that not only hasn't happened, but may never happen --
that is something I need to ponder on further and consult with others.
I understand I'm not following procedures. Sorry about that. But it
doesn't lessen my concerns.
Do we assume, then, that the one vendor/one veto rule only applies when
a company specifically states it will not support something? Shouldn't
it also apply when a company doesn't say whether they will or won't
support one aspect of the document or not?
If the purpose behind this one vendor/one veto approach is to ensure we
no longer have what we had in the past, the inability to use all of the
available web technology because of lack of support among one or more
browsers, then unless the five vendor companies specifically state they
will support each element, or concept, documented in HTML 5, we should
immediately seek to remove it now--rather than wait until some later
time when we finally have to corner each and ask, "Well, will you or
won't you?"
I focused on SVG, MathML, Canvas in the objection, but there's a more
serious item that was brought up in my comments last night: the XML
serialization of HTML 5. It is very much at risk, because we have no
commitment from one company to support XHTML 5. And with one vendor/one
vote, that means we can kiss it good-bye, too.
We can't depend on anything now. Oh, a few scraps tossed us, some new
goodies like client side storage. You know, to keep the kiddies
entertained.
I take things that people tell me as truth. Ian has stated one
vendor/one vote. Not saying anything about canvas, SVG, XHTML, MathML,
etc., is a vote. It's a vote saying, "No". Ignoring the great hulking
elephant in the corner while professing to adhere to consistent
procedures is not something I'm particularly good at.
Sorry, Sam. I am new to this, and most likely not following proper
procedures. But there is more than a hint of lack of consistency to the
procedures followed with HTML 5, so in a way, I'm only following the
course others have set.
Shelley
- Sam Ruby
