Appreciate the informations on what's currently hurting the specs...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Doug Schepers <span dir="ltr"><doug@schepers.cc></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi, WHATWG folks-<br>
<br>
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my opinion, the specific technical details of any given feature (which, let's be fair, are often more-or-less arbitrary) is of lesser importance than there being a single definitive version that is consistent between both organizations. The whole point of an open technical standard is to promote interoperability between implementations, and having conflicting or ambiguous specs will not result in that goal.<br>
<br>
I'm not trying to be political about this, but since W3C and WHATWG are meant to be collaborating, there has to be a certain amount of of flexibility from both sides, for the good of the standard itself, and for readers of the spec.<br>
<br>
There are a few possible ways to handle this:<br>
1) W3C could match the WHATWG version in all details, with all decisions made by WHATWG<br>
2) WHATWG could match the W3C version in all details, with all decisions made by W3C<br>
3) WHATWG and W3C could maintain different specs with different details, and list the differences with an explanation for each<br>
4) WHATWG and W3C could adopt decisions made in each group, and where there is conflict, decide upon some method of settling the difference of opinion.<br>
<br>
Options 1 and 2 are obviously both unreasonable.</blockquote><div><br>One of the unreasonable ways will do fine for the "real" end users.<br><br>I couldn't tell myself which of them but whatever other option will just lead to confusion (as it is now).<br>
<br>I think it is clear to all that specifications should be driven for the benefit of all, unfortunately we all have a hard time putting that in real practice.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Option 3 results in the problem we have now (though having an explanation for each difference would be an improvement; I don't know of any such wording now).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>This is what should be avoided, not one more option.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
This leaves option 4. W3C has a relatively clear method for resolving conflicts: first, the group tries to settle the issue on the merit of the technical arguments; failing that, the group may hold a poll (with each individual or organization given a single voice); if there is no consensus, the chairs of the group can make a ruling based on the reasoning at hand; if there are still Formal Objections to the results of that poll, the group can escalate the issue up to the Domain Lead, and ultimately all the way up to the W3C Director (who is normally Tim Berners-Lee). Obviously, the strong preference is not to get to the poll stage at all. I don't know of any W3C method for dealing with conflicts between different standards bodies, like W3C and WHATWG, so I think we're in the air here; W3C obviously has no authority over decisions made in WHATWG, but we need to find a way to resolve these conflicts.<br>
<br>
As I understand it, the editor seems to have final decision-making power in WHATWG, and I don't know of any process for appealing those decisions (assuming you would want to); for the purposes of arbitration between groups, how can we proceed?<br>
<br>
For the record, here's my suggestion:<br>
<br>
a) Both WHATWG and W3C should maintain a single definitive HTML5 specification, that is a feature-for-feature match between groups<br>
<br>
b) For the longer-term WHATWG work, including sections that were once part of the HTML5 spec but were split off into separate specs (Canvas API) or removed (datagrid), there is another "Master Spec" that includes whatever the editor feels is needed in that spec, so long as it doesn't conflict with the HTML5 or related specs<br>
<br>
c) Where there are technical or political conflicts, WHATWG should decide how to resolve those internally, and how to represent the WHATWG point of view in the W3C HTML WG. I would expect that people differ, so I would expect those different opinions to be represented in liaisons with W3C. I don't have a good answer here, because I think it's up to the WHATWG to decide their own processes, but I hope we agree that we need improvements to how we liaison.<br>
<br>
Maybe the answer is to have a spokesperson or liaison role, someone respected in the WHATWG community with a reputation for reasonable neutrality? Both Hixie and Maciej have conflicts of interest, as editor and W3C co-chair respectively. Maybe Håkon or David, since they were instrumental in forming WHATWG in the first place?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>With all respect for both suggested persons (I would vote for one of them too), I believe neutrality is a term we shouldn't use to describe willingness of a role person to help achieving the objective of both W3C and WHATWG and that should be what the users expect: "one standard body pushing one specification".<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
(Sorry I won't be very responsive on this list, I'm actually on vacation and only have sporadic net access.)<br>
<br>
Regards-<br><font color="#888888">
-Doug<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>Hope the best to both W3C and WHATWG, I am sure you can solve the liaison fairly. Both groups have showed they can solve worst problems than these superficialities... it's just a human thing you must get over :-)<br>
<br>Diego<br><br>