[html4all] WG Process

Tue Feb 26 16:30:08 PST 2008

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>>> From: Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>
>>> Executive summary:
>>> 
>>>  * Tentatively added <ol reversed> to make reverse lists. We'll
>>> remove it
>>>    if browser vendors don't like it.
>> 
> 
> Maybe as a browser vendor people don't think much of my opinion, but
> with that disclaimer made...

Actually Chaals, your  perspective as both a Browser vendor principle,
coupled with your extensive understanding and experience from within W3C is
extremely valuable, so thanks for sticking around.

> Ian's approach is basically that he thinks the browser makers are the
> most critical part of the chain, because if they don't implement then
> the spec is worthless anyway.

An interesting comment...

> 
> I have a lot of sympathy for that position - if you don't have
> implementation, you're writing fantasy, not a standard. On the other
> hand the browser makers (and particularly if you only mean 4 desktop
> browser makers rather than the dozens who are out there) are only one
> group of stakeholders - 

... And so returning to the first comment.  What happens if Opera and
Mozilla think that <ol reversed> is the be-all and end-all, and WebKit and
Redmond say bah, piffle...?  While seeking feedback and input from browser
vendors is important ("yes, we think we can do this", "no, this is going to
be a nightmare to implement"), allowing the tail to continually wag the dog
is a dangerous position to be in. Given the above scenario, what happens
then?  (From far off in the distance of time, John can hear the familiar
refrain "Best viewed in...")... 

Funny, we didn't seem to have the same kind of problems with CSS/ACID 2 now
did we?  The spec was stated, the gauntlet thrown down (ACID 2 - authored by
Ian Hickson no less), and slowly browsers started to work towards passing
ACID 2 (including Opera's Presto layout engine and Apple's WebKit engine).
Sadly, with HTML5, it doesn't seem to be moving the same way.  Instead, we
have various pet projects and perceived needs racing though the "system",
and with them "bug fixes" being filed, while at the same time we, as content
authors and in some cases content consumers are being asked to justify
everything we say we need or want.  Yes, as Laura stated, having the WG
agree to look at a proposed re-write for @ALT lends some encouragement, but
what of the other open issues, plus others as and when they emerge? 

> 
> In particular, I agree that Ian's approach of asking people to split
> replies into various different places is counter productive since it
> means that the input to the decision making process is only clear to
> people who have time to follow everything Ian does (and as he says he
> works full-time on it, which is a luxury not enjoyed by the rest of
> us). 

It also places him at the top as puppet-master, as he can flit back and
forth as his mood sees fit.  Of all the many complaints *I* have with the
current process, this by far is the largest.  It amounts to nothing more
than divide and conquer in the classic sense.

> 
> I think that would be a shame. I don't think the working group is a
> farce, although I do think the proces is not ideal.

I think that the further it moves forward, the less credible it becomes
every day.  With statements such as that attributed to Ian, it could give
the casual on-looker the impression that this is instead going to emerge as
HTML-hixie (similar too, but not the same as <html lang=en-GB-hixie>
[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/])

JF