Burningbird

My August plans are to work on an article, tech editing a couple of books, writing in my own books, and incorporating the rest of the changes I want to make into my space. The changes involve Drupal, SVG, eBook formatting, and RDFa, so they should be fun.

I also plan on finishing my edits on the HTML 5 specification, though they are more extensive than I originally assumed they would be. In fact, I'm very concerned about the overall state of the HTML 5 specification.

Someone mentioned to me recently that my effort with the specification seems unfocused, particularly as it relates to everyone else. It does seem like I'm all over the board, poking my nose into many issues, but that's because my concern really is about the entire document.

I'm concerned, no astonished, at the hubris demonstrated by the HTML 5 specification author in regards to other interests and concerns. Ian Hickson's recent statements in the HTML WG email list, as well as past statements, have also put the W3C in a vulnerable state when it comes to accessibility. His inclusion of the microdata section came about in a fit of pique, and has never had anything but lukewarm support. The redefinition of deprecated and obsolete into the use of terms such as "obsolete but conforming", is completely counter to any language documentation or specification I know of, and imprecise and obfuscating, to boot.

I do not think that HTML 5, as currently written, is a good document. I think there is much that is good in it, but the good is overshadowed by the bad: bad practices, bad decisions, even bad organization. So I spend time making changes to the HTML 5 specification, and covering the arguments for the changes in RealTech.

I have also decided to submit both document and arguments to the HTML WG when I'm finished, though I'm under no illusion that either will be given anything other than perfunctory consideration in the group. The only thing I can promise about my work is that, unlike the current HTML 5 Editor's Draft, my version of the HTML 5 specification is open to input and modification by others. In fact, I would welcome additional editors: I don't happen to believe I have all the answers.

I am concerned, though, that much of the progress in HTML 5 from this point on will probably be based on voting, and the WhatWG organization has stacked the deck, so to speak, in this regard. All I can do, though, is provide what I hope are reasoned arguments and sound changes, described here, and submitted to the HTML WG. In the end, perhaps I'll motivate some folk to *join the HTML WG in order to ensure that everyone's concerns are heard, and addressed.

*It is a simple matter to join the HTML Working Group. You create a W3C account, and fill out a brief questionnaire. You then agree to the W3C's policies as regards to copyright and patent stuff, and you're in. If you're part of a W3C sponsoring organization, you do have to get permission from your organization, but for the rest of us, it doesn't take more than a few minutes of time.