Před několika týdny Ian Hickson zveřejnil několik svých e-mailů, které jsem před tím neznal, a ve kterých jsem si potvrdil, že některé mé domněnky nebyly daleko od pravdy (kterého komentátora by to nepotěšilo, že?).
Dnes bez komentáře Hixieho maily pro všechny, které zajímá, jak se píše historie (doporučuji přečíst celé odkazované maily, resp. celá vlákna, najdete tam řadu zajímavostí).
Re: any comments on HTML charters
If the group is intended to collaborate with the WHATWG, then I think the WHATWG community would be very happy. However, would the HTML WG members be ok with that? Collaboration would consist of having only one specification, shared between the two groups, published on both sites, with feedback sent to both groups treated equally. This allows the spec to gain patent policy protection, allows W3C members to take part without losing face, puts HTML5 back onto the W3C REC track, and yet keeps the existing community happy about their involvement.
If the group is intended to compete with the WHATWG, developing specifications that are mutually exclusive with the WHATWG ones, then I fear that the W3C group will not succeed. The WHATWG community is very adaptable; members of the community have been keeping track of things in XHTML2, for example, and suggesting them for inclusion in the HTML5 work -- in several cases, most notably the
element and headers -- the WHATWG spec version of the feature ends up fully specified long before the XHTML2 working group's, even though the other group came up with the idea first.
The charter should require more openness. I think that working group membership should be open to anyone -- not just W3C members. Anyone wishing to join the group would have to accept the W3C patent policy, of course; however, the current mechanism, whereby someone can pay $900 to get a bigger say in the future of the Web, would clearly not be acceptable to the members of the WHATWG community, many of which are students, self-employed, or working for organisations that are not W3C members and have no real reason to join.
Here is an outline of how I would expect a new HTML specification to proceed along the W3C Recommendation track:Re: Charters for review
First Working Draft . . . . 2007
Last Call Working Draft . . 2009
Candidate Recommendation . 2012
Proposed Recommendation . . 2022
Regarding technical matters, there shouldn't be a difference between being a working group member as a W3C Member Company, a W3C Invited Expert, or participating as a non-W3C Member. This should be made explicit in the charter; currently the charter implies that non-members are not full members of the working group.Re: any comments on HTML charters
The group will communicate its suggestions to the WHATWG community either through posting to the WHATWG mailing list, or by having WHATWG community members being part of the HTML working group.Another proposed HTML charter
The Working Group is expected to work in collaboration with the WHATWG to produce identical specifications, preferably by having the same editor. This collaboration may cease if the two communities do not agree on technical matters. If this happens, the Working Group's charter should be re-examined by the W3C.Another proposed HTML charter (revision 1)
(Changes since the last post: Add video, add WebAPI reference, change criteria for success, removed need for charter to be reexamined if WHATWG and HTMLWG go their separate ways.)