Shelley Powers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Sam Ruby<[email protected]> wrote:
I realize that what I am about to say isn't directly responsive to what you
said, nor is it likely to win me any friends, but here goes (in no
particular order):
1) Where we are today is due in a large part to effort by the WHATWG in
general, and Ian in particular. They closest we can come to a level playing
field is a draft-hixie alongside a draft-sporny or a draft-faulkner or the
like. I won't pretend that anybody here as the credibility that Ian has
built up to date.
Where we are today, is on track to deliver what I feel is probably the
worst markup specification since HTML 3.2. Yes, it is moving forward,
if you count activity as progress, but the more one looks at it, the
more one sees it to be problematic. And not just as relates to
accessibility or RDFa.
Canvas is built-in, which means it can't progress without having to
update the HTML 5 specification just specifically for it. Built-in
vocabularies, which will soon be out of sync with that, which are
copied from. So-called semantic elements, which are based on, well,
weblogging terms and news sites, and don't take into account either
the future structure of the web, or the fact that they don't reflect
web structures that exist today.
Conflicting writing, writing that will make the specification not
backwards compatible. Confusion about conformance.
It appeases the browser makers, totally ignores most authors and
users, and seems to be filled with all sorts of new toys that will
make the kiddies happy. But not enough of the good solid markup stuff
that will make a web that can be built on for the future. It basically
forces us into a gatekeeper situation, and we've already heard Ian
announce plans to maintain ownership, most likely indefinitely. He's
so quick to toss out HTML 6 and HTML 7, where we'll "fix" things
deliberately introduced now.
The XML serialization really isn't extensible, it builds walls against
the work the rest of the W3C is doing, the whole process actually
makes it more difficult to not only try out new elements and
attributes in the future, but to use elements and attributes in
existence today.
This is where we are today, Sam.
I'm a glass is half-full kinda person myself.
I do agree about the confusion about conformance (is ARIA in or out?)
and most of the new features don't excite me, but I do like the focus on
getting existing features to work interoperability.
2) Documents to date have made it to FPWD on the basis of a vote. I am
willing to try lazy consensus[3], but realistically it would not surprise me
if somebody were to call for a vote.
Fair enough.
3) Manu has indicated a willingness to work with Laura, John, and Steve.
For all I know that willingness may not be reciprocated, or may not work
out. In fact, every indication I have seen is that Laura and John would
rather work on a process document than the spec itself. If that is indeed
what they wish to work on, then I will support them as I have supported Manu
- separately.
But what happens when people do submit things. You yourself completely
forget about instances and cases where what you call for has been
provided, and more than once.
Why? Because there is nothing to hand that enables the majority of
people to go to the HTML WG site and actually see points of
contention, to hear alternatives, to be aware that submittals have
been made. Oh, the issue tracking is a computer geek tool -- it
obfuscates, lets the members feel like they're moving forward. But it
doesn't communicate.
No, what is communicated is that everything in HTML 5 land is happy,
and well formed, and inclusive, because that's the page that people
see when they come to the W3C.
See 2 and 5 on how to change that.
4) Ideally, no special status would mean that authors would be able to
include material from each other, and Ian wouldn't be excluded from the
ability to incorporate suggestions from others.
There is nothing about parity that would mean any of the parties
couldn't use each other's work. Parity would mean that there would be
equal visibility of effort, nothing more, nothing less.
Cool.
I was reacting mainly to the thought of "two alternatives, one from the
WhatWG, and one consisting of a collaborative efforts". What you
describe is the most likely way it will happen, and if so, I simply want
it to be because those that don't choose to "cherry pick" the solutions
with the widest support to put into their document made that choice.
5) Neither Mike nor Manu have yet to indicate that their respective
documents are ready for FPWD.
So is that the procedure then? They produce these documents when
they're ready to progress, and the HTML WG puts the documents to a
vote for FPWD, in conjunction with the WhatWG's version? And then, if
the vote is favorable, the working group would have multiple working
documents referenced from the front page?
Pretty much.
I do recommend that documents have three independent contributors before
being put forward as a candidate FPWD. This is mainly as a gage of the
potential for consensus and a counter-measure to misuse of the system
for parodies, etc. This is just a recommendation, however, and both
"independent" and "contributors" are not well defined terms and will be
evaluated loosely. (Example: I would treat your support for a PFWG
proposal more as an independent confirmation that I would treat your
support for a SWWG proposal, and contributions could be as simple as a
bug report).
In a group this size, demonstrating such support should not be a
problem. And latitude will be given if a reasonable attempt to do so
has been made and the effort is clearly sincere (again, not a parody or
the like).
One last caution: counting votes is not an exact science. If the WHATWG
or the PFWG vote as a block, their votes will be considered as such.
(This also goes to Microsoft or other institutions).
Once a decision is made, there always is the possibility of a Formal
Objection. But it is my hope that by the time a decision is made I will
have documented that there is diverse and broad support for the
Decision. And given the nature of FPWD[4] (specifically: "even if it is
unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements."), I don't
anticipate that that will be a problem.
6) I can not guarantee that any document will gain consensus, including
Ian's. Simply put, there is a small but distinct possibility that everybody
is wasting their time here. Clearly, I wouldn't be devoting my time here if
I felt that were likely.
The possibility grows, daily.
Shelley
[1]
http://realtech.burningbird.net/semantic-web/semantic-web-issues-and-practices/survivor-w3c
- Sam Ruby
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus
Shelley
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
- Sam Ruby
