[whatwg] The political and legal status of WHATWG
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jun 25 00:49:59 PDT 2009
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Brian Smith wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > 9.) Should HTML5 be put back under direct control of the W3C now
> > > that they have expressed interest in developing it?
> > It is "under direct control of the W3C". It just happens that I'm
> > editor of the spec in the W3C as well as the WHATWG and I'm editing
> > the two specs in the exact same way at the same time, and am taking
> > input from all sources while editing both documents.
> In the WHATWG, you have the "Chair" and the "Editor" roles, but in the
> W3C working group, you are only the editor. What happens when the W3C
> HTML working group disagrees with the WHATWG? Will you edit two
> divergent specifications? Are you planning to stay on as the editor of
> the W3C version after it diverges from the WHATWG version?
The spec still hasn't diverged. Hopefully it never will. If it does, I
guess we cross that bridge when we get to it.
> There are a lot of people, including some W3C working group members, who
> would prefer a HTML 5 specification that is more limited in scope than
> the current WHATWG specification.
I would encourange anyone interested in such an effort to persue it. So
far nobody has stepped up to the plate to actually do that work though.
Personally I don't think a less ambitious project is as interesting.
> The time to produce a final HTML 5 recommendation could be significantly
> reduced simply by dropping features from the specification that have
> little to do with HTML. For example, the data storage and networking
> APIs should be moved from the HTML 5 specification into their own
This has been done, though not for the reasons you mention. I actually
don't think it'll make any difference to the timetable; the specs are all
still following the same timetable as was originally planned for HTML5 as
> and the syntax error handling requirements should be removed in the W3C
Making the W3C and WHATWG specs diverge seems undesireable.
> The bias against the XML serialization should also be removed.
I believe the spec is more or less neutral on this now.
> The WHATWG seems determined to "stay the course" on these issues, but
> there is (more) opposition within the W3C WG. So, some kind of
> significant divergence seems likely.
Let's hope we can manage to avoid any divergence. It hasn't been necessary
yet, at least.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg