[html4all.org] Fwd: process issue: citing HTML5 draft

[Robert Burns]

Hello 4all,

This issue is related to Phil's recent open letter to Anne, but I  
went the prescribed route without any more success. Basically I  
complained to the chairs that WG members are citing the HTML5  
recommendation at various bug-reporters (WebKit and Mozilla that I am  
aware of). They use the HTML5 draft to get WebKit and Mozilla to drop  
HTML4.01 features. Then they come back to the WG and tell us that the  
implementations have dropped support so now we have to drop support  
from the specification too.

I provided Dan with several instances of this and told him I could  
collect more. He was not interested in doing anything about it. I was  
trying to present this in a moderate way to DanC, but I really think  
this is a big issue and he should put a stop to it.

Following is the second email I sent him on the topic after his first  
reply. Followed by his second reply.


My message to the Chairs
--------------------------------------------------
On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> It's not clear to me what W3C policy you think someone
> is not adhering to.
>

Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but every W3C document I've ever seen,  
prominently displayed a notice insisting it not be cited  
authoritatively. For example, the XHTML2 draft says: "It is  
inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.".  
Even if it's not expressly prohibited, I think you can see how it  
could cause problems for the WG.

Perhaps the one comment you addressed was a little unclear, however  
even that was indicative of the circular logic where one comment  
claims the implementors should do something because HTML5 says it  
should and the next comment claims that HTML5 is all about codifying  
what the implementations do.. I't is truly dizzying.

Anyway, here's some comments that I think are not so ambiguous:

<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643>
Lachlan Hunt  2007-08-20 21:50:26 PDT

> This bug should be marked invalid now. HTML5 now defines the usemap  
> attribute
> as a Hashed ID Reference, not a URI, and can only reference maps  
> within the
> same document.
>
> The usemap attribute:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#usemap1
>
> Hashed ID Reference:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid7
>


<http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15032>
Comment #2 From Maciej Stachowiak 2007-08-21 00:18 PDT [reply]

> This feature is underspecified in HTML4, and not implemented by IE.  
> It is also
> likely to be dropped in HTML5 and may be removed from Mozilla and  
> Opera as a
> result.
>

<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643>
Comment #3 From Alexey Proskuryakov 2007-08-21 00:55 PDT [reply]

> Clearly, breaking compatibility with IE just because of HTML4 spec  
> is not an
> option for us. This issue is being extensively discussed by the  
> HTML WG right
> now, so I do not see any reason to rehash the discussion here.
>
> Please re-open this bug if ***HTML5 draft changes*** to accommodate  
> this feature.
>
*** emphasis added

<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=392994>
Lachlan Hunt  2007-08-20 22:18:44 PDT

>
> [...]
>
> Image maps on <input type=image> are currently supported (see bug  
> 31188).
>
> [...]
>
> 5. HTML5 currently will not be including the usemap attribute on input
> elements.
>
> [...]
>

If you don't think these are a problem, just let me know. I thought  
it unwise to cite ongoing deliberations of the WG as authoritative  
references for bug reports, but I could reconsider.  These are just a  
few recent examples. There are many more I could find. Again, if I'm  
misunderstanding W3C policy and you don't think this is an issue,  
just let me know.


Begin forwarded message: from DanC in reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Connolly <connolly at w3.org>
Date: August 23, 2007 12:20:41 PM CDT
To: Robert Burns <rob at robburns.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson at microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: process issue: citing HTML5 draft

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 09:32 -0500, Robert Burns wrote:
> Hi Dan and Chris,
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what W3C policy you think someone
>> is not adhering to.
>
> Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but every W3C document I've ever seen,
> prominently displayed a notice insisting it not be cited
> authoritatively. For example, the XHTML2 draft says: "It is
> inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.".

Of course; the HTML 5 spec has one with big bold letters:

"Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable.
Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to
find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible
ways."
  -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/


> Even if it's not expressly prohibited, I think you can see how it
> could cause problems for the WG.

What's prohibited is to cite the spec as other than work
in progress. All the citations I see are of a work in progress:
"currently"... "likely to be dropped"

The "never will" comment goes to far, but in context, I don't
think it does that much harm.

> Perhaps the one comment you addressed was a little unclear, however
> even that was indicative of the circular logic where one comment
> claims the implementors should do something because HTML5 says it
> should and the next comment claims that HTML5 is all about codifying
> what the implementations do.. I't is truly dizzying.

It's explicitly not circular:

"It's the dog (the implementations) wagging the tail (the spec),
not vice versa."
  -- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643



> Anyway, here's some comments that I think are not so ambiguous:

I don't see any comments that present the HTML 5 spec
as anything more than it is: work in progress.


> If you don't think these are a problem, just let me know. I thought
> it unwise to cite ongoing deliberations of the WG as authoritative
> references for bug reports, but I could reconsider.

I can see something to be concerned about... and if the HTML 5
spec were being passed off as a "W3C standard" or something,
then yes, that would be something I would have to do something
about.

But as it is... this looks like people advocating their position
strongly and using the current text as part of their argument.
That seems like a good way to get feedback on the current draft.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wilbur.bytowninternet.com/pipermail/list_html4all.org/attachments/20070823/d332a245/attachment.html