[whatwg] Re: some issues

Malcolm Rowe malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Wed Jul 7 10:26:22 PDT 2004

Jim Ley writes:
>> That is a good argument for submitting these specifications to the W3C.
>> Arguments against are the W3C membership's lack of interest in developing
>> HTML, as noted at the recent workshop on Web Applications.  Arguments in
>> favour of ECMA are that JavaScript was well-handled by the ECMA group.
>> Arguments in favour of IETF are similar to the Atom group's arguments.
> So you specifically disagree with the consensus that I've seen on the
> mailing list (there's only really been one dissenting voice) that the
> W3 is the only sensible organisation for taking this draft too.

Count me as a dissenter, then. I disagree that the W3C is the *only* 
sensible orginsation to submit this to. It's the 'obvious' choice, sure, but 
it's not the only choice, and I think that most of the people using the term 
'W3C' when talking about eventual submittal would probably also agree with 
'whoever it turns out to be'. 

Another choice might be ISO, who've standardised a variant of HTML. 

Don't take references to 'W3C' as explicit confirmation that the writer 
means 'and no other'; they're probably just running with the assumption (as 
I am) that W3C would be a good, default, first port-of-call. But not 'W3C or 
nothing', and perhaps not even W3C, if there's sufficient consensus when we 
get that far. 


More information about the whatwg mailing list