Recently, a question was asked of people about making the W3C the place
for Web Standards[1]. However, also recently, activity in the HTML WG
has virtually come to a standstill. It seems to me, how the HTML WG
progresses from this point on has a direct bearing on whether the W3C
can effectively manage web standards efforts in the future. If the W3C
can't effectively manage HTML, which is the foundation for the web, how
can it manage other web standards now, and in the future?
Consider the following:
There are currently 374 bugs filed against the HTML WG documents, most
against the HTML5 spec. Of these, 268 bugs are over 30 days old[2].
In the last 30 days, only 4 bugs have been closed out [3], and only 28
bugs have had some editor action[4].
There are currently 23 open issues[5]. Some issues have passed deadlines
months ago with no resolution, and no idea when any resolution is
forthcoming. Several have had a surveys and are awaiting co-chair
decision. Some of the surveys were given almost three months ago, and
again, no deadline is given when resolution can be expected. Several of
the issues have had change proposals supplied months ago, and are still
waiting surveys. Again, no deadlines, no idea when these items will
progress.
Issues in the Issue list seem to be resolved on an average of about 3-4
a month. At the same time, there is a good likelihood that when many of
the outstanding bugs finally get addressed by editors, several could end
up as issues. With an estimated issue resolution rate of about 3-4 a
month (being liberal with my estimates), issues will prevent any
progress of the HTML5 specification for a minimum of several months,
most likely into 2011. And a 2011 estimation is only viable if the
number of new issues is kept to a minimum.
In the meantime, several members of the group, including those who have
outstanding tasks in the HTML WG, are now participating in another
specification effort with the IETF[6]. This isn't a problem, except for
the fact that the ongoing work in the IETF HYBI group could be
potentially blocking ongoing work in the HTML WG, because at least two
of the people (Maciej Stachowiak and Ian Hickson) are in the HTML WG's
issue resolution critical path.
In particular, Ian Hickson is the only editor for the HTML5
specification, and as such, if his time is being preempted by work
elsewhere, the HTML WG should be strongly encouraged to add new editors.
Otherwise, the current backlog of bugs may never be resolved--or will be
resolved haphazardly, with undo haste and lack of consideration.
Yes, people do have lives outside of any of these group's efforts. No
one denies this. But if people feel they can not meet the requirements
demanded of them for their positions--such as HTML5 editor, or HTML WG
co-chair--they should consider whether they can continue in the role, or
whether it would be better to have those with more time take up the
position.
The W3C HTML WG cannot continue at the current pace--not if there is to
be even the most remote chance for the HTML5 to progress this year, as
per the group's current charter and estimated timelines. Not if the W3C
wants to be considered _the_ place for web standards in the future.
I have submitted a bug listing my concerns about the timeliness of the
HTML WG effort, but have not yet received a response[7].
Thank you
Shelley Powers
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results
[2] http://w3.org/brief/MTkz
[3] http://w3.org/brief/MTkw
[4] http://w3.org/brief/MTkx
[5] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/maillist.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10230
