[html4all] HTMLWG

[Henri Sivonen]

On Nov 25, 2007, at 03:59, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:

> There is only one reason that I can think of why people "cannot"  
> join the HTML-WG - conflict with the W3C patent policy.

There are people who aren't subscribed to public-html, who do  
subscribe and occasionally contribute to the WHATWG list and who work  
for W3C Members that have agreed to the Patent Policy in the HTML WG  
context. My conjecture is that having to get nominated by the AC rep  
is enough of a barrier to stop occasional comments to public-html in  
that case.

> However, 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:
>
> 1. Some people are really turned off by the bullying tone taken by  
> some WG members.

This isn't the first time I've heard "bullying" in the context of  
public-html. I'm really curious about what behaviors have been taken  
as bullying. What is considered "the bullying tone"?

> Some feel that the HTML-WG culture is that of 'you are with us or  
> you are against us'.

Interesting. The most polarized "us vs. them" thinking I've seen in  
the HTML5 context has been on this mailing list.

> 2. Some people strongly object/disagree with some of the design  
> principles of X/HTML 5. Joining the HTML-WG is in effect endorsing  
> the design principles of X/HTML 5.

If one disagrees with the fundamental design principles in such a way  
that removing one's objection would require changing HTML5 in a way  
that would make keystone[1] stakeholders leave, one might indeed find  
it difficult to contribute productively. I don't know what to say  
except that when people want mutually exclusive things, everyone  
cannot be satisfied at the same time.

> 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.

I think HTML5 most definitely does not suffer from 'not *invented*  
here'. Good ideas have been taken from various sources. Rather,  
there's a 'not *specified* here' mindset. That is, things not invented  
"here" are accepted as worth using, but the specs for those things not  
written "here" are very often (but for good reason) considered to be  
badly written and in need of rewriting in a more precise and reality- 
aligned way. (That is, the specs don't match implementation reality or  
aren't precise enough to codify what needs to be implemented in order  
to get interoperable implementations without implementors reverse  
engineering each other's products.)

> 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.


More to the point, it would be pointless to write a spec that didn't  
meet the needs of browser vendors. This doesn't mean that the  
contributions of others will be marginalized.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/