[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Mon Jul 5 18:35:28 PDT 2004
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:57:18 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>1) The time it takes to get feedback from a standards organization is
> >>significantly reduced.
> > There's no feedback from standards orgs being solicited in any of the
> > specs at this time.
> What's your point?
That the fact the spec is small is completely irrelevant to your point
1. There's no reason why W3 process would be slower with a single
spec than 3 indeed it's likely to be faster (one fixed length
CR/PR/REC phase rather than 3)
> We can't get feedback on what we don't submit,
You use WE a lot, are you a member of the WHAT WG?
> More along the lines of if W3--er--the various standards
> organizations seem resistant to specific concepts or wording, we can try
> something different in the next spec, or try submitting to a different
> standards organization.
Oh right so if WF2 fails to be accepted by the W3, (and you seem to be
hinting that that's option, but I don't really see why you're saying
that from what's been said on this list.) the plan is to just send in
Web Controls 2.0 - I think the process will be pretty dead if the
first one gets rejected, there'll be simply no credibility to carry
> > The current commentary is from a very few
> > developers, there's even only 3 or 4 of the Working Group themselves
> > ever commenting on suggestions. If we can't even get their expertise
> > into the spec, how can we expect 3rd part people?
> You're assuming that they have comments and that when they do, they
> express them in the mailing list. This is not necessarily the case.
> Besides, what are you going to do, make Ian make his fellow members post
> their comments on the mailing list?
The Open process of the WHAT WG only defines this mailing list as the
place to give comments, so yes, also Ian has said the WG consensus is
currently to follow what the mailing list says (see archive) If
there's discussion going on elsewhere then it's following the process
and we return to the problem of this not really being percieved to be
an open process - "What's the point of kvetching about the W3C being
too private and then being even more private yourself?" Kendall Grant
> Furthermore, standards organizations have plenty of experts of their
> own. If we miss something, they can fill in the gaps. The proposals we
> produce don't have to be perfect.
That kinds make this whole process pointless, why not just take the
use cases to the standards body, a few basic proposals (sort of where
WF2 was 6 months ago) and get them to set up a working group - if
we're not going to do it properly, there's no point being fast or
outside the regular organisations.
> Secondly, why can't we just create a Web Forms 2.0
> Mobile Profile?
Because most mobile browsers aren't upgradeable? So we need the spec
to degrade into these legacy ones, which means we need to be able to
publish to those document types (unless we're going to exclude these
> >>the developer isn't worried about implementing each of the three
> >>specifications one at a time, I'm not going to worry about it either.
> > The problem comes when you're deciding how to implement things, I
> > believe C Williams comments were suggesting that a vendor other than
> > Opera/Safari/Mozilla could feel at a disadvantage because they don't
> > know what's coming up in the next module of the specification that may
> > heavily impact on how to design something.
> Why would they not know that? Their browser isn't compatible with
> the archive site? They have trouble with our mailing list? An open
> process means not being surprised by the final draft.
The problem is perception, 3 browser vendors are absolutely
controlling the process, it doesn't appear open currently.
Competitive advantage by inventing new elements etc. is how the war
was fought 9 years ago, I think people are right to be suspicious.
> Not likely, especially
> when you consider the fact that the guy running the show is the same guy
> leaking early drafts of the XBL2 proposal.
That hardly means anything, and it's certainly not something to
applaud, indeed this lack of caring about process is one of the things
that makes me have severe reservations about the WHAT WG process. IF
he doesn't follow W3, why would he follow this one?
> Only if you want to support Web Controls 1.0.
Yes, but lets imagine you do, because your competitors do, you're not
going to sell your UA if it can't render pages as well as others.
> Perhaps rather than using scare tactics ("WHAT WG is an Opera
> puppet!") to make this process more open and impartial, you should just
> outright suggest how the process could be more open and impartial.
I've done that, see the archive, all the comments have been rejected
as far as I can see.
> 2) By the time Longhorn comes out,
What has Longhorn got to do with anything?
> 3) Macromedia and Adobe have no interest supporting Web Forms because
> they both have competing products (Flash and SVG).
Yet, they're still rendering more web documents and applications every
day than the three browser vendors in the WHAT WG. Maybe they should
try and get some of their input?
More information about the whatwg