[html4all] HTMLWG was Re: html authoring guidelines

[Charles McCathieNevile]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:59:08 +0100, Vlad Alexander  
<vlad.alexander at xstandard.com> wrote:

> ...there are good reason why people who do want to participate on the  
> development of the future markup language for the Web and have time to  
> do so, "don't" join the HTML-WG:

OK, I understand that.

> 1. Some people are really turned off by the bullying tone taken by some  
> WG members. Some feel that the HTML-WG culture is that of 'you are with  
> us or you are against us'.

Indeed. This is a problem, although perhaps less so now than earlier, or  
maybe just a lot of people have already walked away so the issue isn't  
visible anymore. If you have specific examples, I encourage you to talk  
tothe chairs and Staff contact, who spend time privately talking to many  
people in order to try and improve things. If you have specific problems  
with people from Opera, of course, you are welcome to contact me directly  
since my day job includes overall resposnsibility for all Opera employees  
working in W3C.

> 2. Some people strongly object/disagree with some of the design  
> principles of X/HTML 5.

I suspect a lot of people disagree with something in the current drafts.

> Joining the HTML-WG is in effect endorsing the design principles of  
> X/HTML 5.

Not at all. The Design Principles DO NOT reflect any consensus of the  
group, but instead a working draft of some principles. I doubt they will  
ever reflect a consensus of the group, but are a useful guide to ideas  
that exist among members of the group.

> 3. Some people feel that the HTML-WG suffers from a 'not invented here'  
> mindset, so prospective participants may not join because they feel  
> their contributions will only be struck down.

Sure. This doesn't mean people cannot join, but that they do not. That is  
still a problem.

To some extent I am a proponent of the "Not Invented Here" restriction -  
in particular, I feel that it is generally not a smart move to reinvent  
things that HTML already has, for example a lot of the accessibility  
features of HTML 4 that are not in the current draft but should go back in  
before the process is finished.

> 4. Some people feel that the X/HTML 5 spec is written to meet the  
> needs/wants of browser vendors. Prospective participants from other  
> interest groups may feel that their needs/contributions will be  
> marginalized.

Again, this is a barrier based on perception and not a reason people  
cannot join the group.

I think that a handful of browser vendors (four or five, out of a large  
number) are regarded with almost excessive reverence by some participants  
in the group. In their defence, those vendors collectively supply a lot of  
the resources (I represent one, and have put up the resources to ensure  
that the differences document is available, and more recently to provide a  
guide to HTML5 for semi-normal people), and expect something back for  
their trouble.

Finally, the reason the group exists in the first place is that XHTML2, by  
not engaging the vendors of major browsers, has proven a total failure *on  
the public web* - there is virtually none of it, and you can't read it  
even if you find it unless you have a very specialised browser (Opera has  
support for a large amount of it, but you need to do some serious  
customisation and add some substantial extensions to handle it all,  
includng Xforms and the rest). So it is important to ensure that browsers  
will actually implement the results, if it is to be more than an exercise  
in writing wishlists.

That said, the opinions of web developers, tool developers, educators and  
writers, and various other groups, is very important. Likewise, people who  
understand issues of translation, localisation and internationalisation,  
and people who understand accessibility, the state and future of mobile  
and other "non-traditional" browsing devices, are critical for the success  
of the group.

> So it is important to have discussion and critique of X/HTML 5 outside  
> the HTML-WG.

Hmmm. I think that it is valuable to have it. It is critical that it take  
place in the group that will actually produce the specification. WHile  
there is a large historical influence from WHAT-WG, and that is recognised  
as one of the outside fora where people have discussions, the reason for  
the group being at W3C is to make a W3C specification, and that means that  
ultimately the one group that decides on the specification is the HTML-WG.

For that reason, it is critical that the results of any other discussion  
are communicated to the HTML-WG. The editors of drafts can read anything  
they want, and currently communicate parts of the discussions they happen  
to be involved in or agree with or otherwise decide are interesting by way  
of changes to the drafts. For the rest of us, if we don't know that  
something is being followed up in the HTML-WG I think we have to presume  
it is not. That doesn't oblige anyone to join the group. But it clarifies  
what happens if nobody does.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha