
The W3C Bites Back? - toni
http://burningbird.net/node/106
======
dahditdah
I don't understand Shelley (The author of the submitted post). Shelley seems
to constantly complain about the work that has been done in the WHATWG, and in
particular Ian Hickson's work as editor. Shelley seems to like to use W3C
process (like the format objection that is mentioned in the post) to slow
things down or drown debate in process.

"Though frequently contentious, and overly bureaucratic at times, the W3C
effort is the only effort where people other than Ian Hickson may have a say
about what is, or is not, in the HTML5 specification. "

This is just wrong. The WHATWG is actually the easiest way to get your ideas
considered in HTML 5. This is because all feedback sent to the public WHATWG
mailing list is considered and replied to by the editor. Anyone can join the
list. Try joining the 'public' HTML W3C mailing list some time.

"Just as important, the W3C provides the legal stability that allows all of
the browser companies to freely, and safely, participate."

Funny, browser vendors seemed to do just fine implementing and contributing to
HTML 5 while the W3C was busy XHTMLing there way to obsolescence.

The W3C public mailing is currently full of debate about how the WHATWG
specification dares to exist alongside the W3C specification. The W3C spec is
based on the WHATWG spec and future development continues in the WHATWG spec.
Even if that spec was removed I'm sure someone else will start a new spec for
new enhancements to HTML that HTML users and implementers agree on. That might
as well continue to be the WHATWG spec as far as I can see.

What really seems to be happening is a few people on the W3C HTML list don't
like the amount of influence the browser vendors and WHATWG are having on the
direction of HTML. They've lost control of the what goes on in HTML and are
trying to go back to the approach of large, never implemented, specs where no
two implementations work the same.

It seems to me that the 'benevolent dictator' approach of the WHATWG
development of HTML 5 has been much more successful in getting browsers to
implement new features than the 'design by committee - but only those who pay
to join' approach of the W3C that the original submission's author wants.

~~~
noibl
Having perused the mailing list discussion it seems clear to me that certain
entities within the W3C HTML WG (including Apple[1]) are now seeking to
emphasise emerging differences (however slight or hard-won) between the W3C
draft of HTML5 and the WHATWG draft of HTML. Meanwhile Mozilla and Opera have
remained quiet. The timing of this debate is effective because HTML5 has
recently hit the mainstream as a buzzword and people unaware of its
development history will instinctively refer to the W3C.

While wresting control of the spec from WHATWG may be a worthwhile end for
some in the W3C, one has to wonder what Apple could gain from insisting that
only 'Portions of this specification are also part of a specification
published by the WHATWG'[1], and thereby marginalising the group which is
responsible for the spec's very existence and of which Apple is a prominent
member.

[1] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2010Jun/0369...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2010Jun/0369.html)

~~~
othermaciej
The post you cite was sent on behalf of the three W3C HTML Working Group
Chairs. While I, the person who happened to send it through my email client,
happen to work for Apple, that does not make it the official opinion of Apple
in any way.

------
tkahn6
This seems interesting but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly he
is talking about. He starts out talking about the alt tag and then I start to
lose him. Can anyone clarify or give some context?

~~~
matthewsimon
There's recently been a round of debate about whether the alt attribute for
media (eg, <img alt="Foo">) should remain required or could become optional.

As I understand it, some web page creators say "some of our images don't have
good logical, human-readable alt text, so why make us put in alt attributes
with crappy made-up values", and other people argue that it is worth the extra
effort to improve accessibility. (No doubt I've butchered both sides of the
argument, but that's what I was able to take away from it.)

See <http://blog.whatwg.org/omit-alt> for an argument in favor of making it
optional, and
[http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.h...](http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html)
for it being required, or [http://juicystudio.com/article/requiring-alt-
attribute-html5...](http://juicystudio.com/article/requiring-alt-attribute-
html5.php) for a list of pros and cons.

The two standards groups hosting the draft HTML specs appear to have different
centers of gravity with regard to this issue, and to be making increasingly
snippy comments back and forth about the other's handling of the dispute.

------
famsam
The real question of the whole thing is how Microsoft could be given permanent
chairmanship of the whole thing, where they have only ever had one goal in the
last ten years, kill the browser however they can. They have discovered after
giving it their best try to just ignore it and hope it will go away that they
have to get back into the process and kill things that way. It would be far
better to have a specification that goes forward without their approval than
one that they make harmless enough that they can still ignore it while having
negatively impacted the value of the whole thing.

~~~
othermaciej
There are three co-chairs currently, who are employed by Apple, IBM and
Microsoft respectively. Paul Cotton, the Chair who is employed by Microsoft,
has lots of standards experience, including as a former chair of the XML Query
group. He's been very helpful in dealing with W3C inner workings, but has
mostly stayed out of technical debates.

Notwithstanding the history of Microsoft's engagement with Web standards, I
think Paul has been doing a fine job and I can't really say a word against
him.

~~~
famsam
He has played that game for a while as these things just happen to be
happening around him. He is a facilitator for Microsoft with respect to having
their way with standards. If he avoids the technical debates, all the more
reason he shouldn't be there. Yet somehow they object when whatwg
characterizes a removal as being politically motivated.

