[html4all.org] process issue: citing HTML5 draft

[Robert Burns]

Hi Dan and Chris,


On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> 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.

Well yes, that's what I'm complaining about. That they're using the  
current draft as part of their argument. It's something I think is  
irresponsible for the WG to allow its members to use an unstable  
draft to bolster arguments or make announcements to the World  about  
what HTML5 has proclaimed. On the one hand this misinformation goes  
to the bug reporters and on the other hand, they're proclaiming it on  
their blogs (as Philip Taylor's post points out). One confuses  
implementors the other confuses authors. Should we start a third fork  
to confuse users (keeping the priority of constituencies in  
mind :-) )? I think this is going to be bad PR in general for HTML5.  
That concerns me.

On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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

But Dan, a comment almost immediately preceding this  comment is:

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.

That doesn't sound like just an argument advocating one way or  
another. That sounds to me like this WG has put together ad fairly  
definitive draft that implementors should follow. This is a bit like  
the boy who cries wolf. By the time we actually have a  
recommendation, implementors may be fed up with this HTML5 says one  
thing, now it says another.

It also looks very explicitly circular. One WG member says the  
implementation has to change due to the HTML5 recommendation. The  
next WG member claims that HTML5 (the tail being wagged) is based on  
the implementation (the dog). We therefore have an unstable draft  
solidly based on an unstable implementation that is, in turn, based  
on the unstable draft. Seems like a pretty tight circle to me. If  
you're not concerned about the tight circle, that's fine, but I find  
it odd to hear you say you don't see it.

Take care,
Rob