Category: W3C

The standards organization for all things web

Categories
W3C

Survivor: W3C

If the W3C were a TV show, it would be Survivor, without a doubt. With the announcement of the less than graceful retirement of XHTML 2.0, the charitable would say that W3C is consolidating resources. The less charitable would say that in a face-to-face with the WhatWG and the browsers, the W3C blinked; or was voted off, to use the Survivor parlance.

Survivor Logo

Yes, XHTML will continue, but it’s a weakened XHTML, barely given enough oxygen to survive. In the wake of its rude abandonment, other affiliated groups, including the RDFa group, are left to scramble about as best they can to find a base. Sam Ruby of the HTML WG has encouraged them to jump into the HTML 5 web waters, and grab a copy of HTML 5 as a raft to ride to the future. I hope we will be forgiven, though, if we see the raft as a desperate, leaky ride, at best.

Players on a raft

Our web dims, as the lights of the consortium of web browsers— Mozilla/Firefox, Apple/Webkit/Safari, Google/Chrome, Microsoft/IE, and Opera—burn brighter. But wait? Wasn’t this the state of affairs a dozen years ago? Wasn’t the web of the future supposed to be a goal of what can be, not an infomercial of what is?

Why do I feel we have suddenly embraced mediocrity and called it gold?

Survivor picture

Those who beat tiny fists at walls surrounding HTML 5, are given a glimmer of hope: all they have to do is make a copy of the HTML 5 specification and modify it as they want, and if this doesn’t magically bring about consensus, why there will be some kind of vote and the best spec will win.

I wonder, though, will the vote take place with paper and charcoal, and names read off around a campfire? With some form of ritualistic extinguishing of the loser’s torch?

Torch being doused on Survivor

More:

I remind the new HTML 5 players of Survivor, and the concept of Alliance.

Survivor Players form an alliance

Categories
W3C XHTML/HTML

XHTML2 is dead

XHTML2 news on Twitter

I have mixed feelings on this news.

On the one hand, I think it’s a good idea to focus on one X/HTML path.

On the other, I’ve been a part of the HTML WG for a little while now, and I don’t feel entirely happy, or comfortable with many of the decisions for X/HTML5, or for the fact that it is, for all intents and purposes, authored by one person. One person who works for Google, a company that can be aggressively competitive.

Categories
HTML5 Specs W3C

The “WhatWG’s Mine is Mine” Design Principle kerfuffle

I’m not part of the HTML WG, but still follow along. Enough to see that one of the big ongoing debates lately is about the HTML WG’s Design Principles draft document. There are too many threads to link, but I would suggest the following as good places to start:

I think some people, i.e. Laura and Larry, expect the Design Principles to be used as rules, rather than as means of explaining

My own opinion of the document, and the discussion surrounding the document, is that the HTML WG Design Principles document is imprecise, vague, and vulnerable to use by self-justifying entities—OK, if you just want a fuzzy feel-good document that looks good in the press, but not something you want to see from a formal W3C Note, which is what the Design Principles wants to be…when it grows up. Definitely not something you want to see used to enforce, or justify, design decisions.

There have been numerous objections to the Design Principles document, in the past and in the current debate, not all of which have been addressed. In my opinion, though, what’s more important is that provisions in the HTML WG Design document have been used to shoot down discussion and debate about namespace support in HTML, support for RDFa, and the introduction of the microdata section:

But I don’t want RDFa to hog all of the focus. Other groups and interests have also been gently schooled in the HTML Design Principles:

So, what do we know about the Design Principles? Ian Hickson in the HTML WG mailing list:

I think the text in the Introduction of the editor’s draft of the HTML Design Principles as of rev 1.26 is quite accurate, and that the rest of the text in that document meets the goals set out in the introduction admirably. I think that it is ridiculous to think that language design can ever be based on strict objective rules, and I do not think that the design guidelines claim that this is what is attempted (indeed quite the opposite). In fact, that’s what the term “design principles” means.

Thank you for that clarification, Ian. Oh, Henri, about that DOM Consistency principle you frequently mention…

Categories
HTML5 RDF Specs W3C

My HTML WG status

I posted about quitting the HTML WG on Twitter, but there’s only so much one can shove into 140 characters. Of course, I realize that most people will probably be uninterested in a longer writing on my reasons, but that’s the advantage of syndication feeds—you can see at a glance whether you want to read beyond the first few sentences of a writing. Or not.

First of all a clarification: I joined the HTML WG once. I quit the HTML WG once. I joined the HTML WG reluctantly, because as I wrote at the time, I’m really not a joiner. I feel I’m best writing in my own space, not participating in a back and forth in email lists; definitely not through quick non-thinking blurbs in an IRC channel, or teleconferences where key players never participate.

I did join, though, and became actively involved. However, I never could figure out the “rules” of the effort, and I found it both discouraging and exhausting. So much so that it drained the energy I needed for the writing I need to do for a living. More importantly, I felt I really wasn’t making a difference, and I’m not sure I was willing to play the game in order to make a difference.

A further point of clarification: My decision to quit did not come about because of any exchange I had yesterday with any person. It was a number of factors that led to my quitting, a primary one being the one I just mentioned, needing to focus on work. I’d already decided to quit before yesterday, but was waiting for a specific thread on RDFa to play out. I will mention, though, that some of the reasons why I’m leaving were echoed in that thread, including the hostility of the WhatWG backchannel IRC, and the lack of respect some members of this group have for members of the HTML WG and other W3C groups.

Some of the the WhatWG members seem to think that I’ve quit the HTML WG more than once, but they are mistaken. I unsubscribed from the WhatWG email lists, because I found the environment hostile. I stopped working on my assessment of metadata use cases, because the HTML5 author, Ian Hickson, suddenly released a new microdata section, changing everything I wanted to write.

I have unsubscribed from the WhatWG mailing list, and that won’t change. I have quit the HTML WG, and I may, but it’s unlikely, rejoin at some later time. But I have not stopped writing about the HTML5 specification. Whether I make a difference or not, my way of “participating”, in the HTML5 effort, and any other, is by writing in this space. And I will continue to do so, in my own time, and in my own way.

Categories
HTML5 W3C

Joining the HTML5 Working Group

I should be working on my book, if I don’t want my pitiful little reserve to be sucked dry before I’m finished. At the same time, though, I feel engaged with the discussion about “microdata” et al in relation to the HTML5 working group. And I figure the writing I’m doing providing new use cases and examining the differences between the HTML5 editor’s proposal and RDFa, can be useful to my book. There’s some other stuff happening at the HTML WG related to accessibility I’m also interested in, and I’m keeping a watchful eye on SVG/HTML5.

Sam Ruby has suggested I join the HTML Working group, as an Invited Expert. It doesn’t cost anything, though I am concerned about the time commitment. I’m not a joiner, per se, but I do have strong opinions about certain aspects of the specification. Now if only some big company that isn’t teetering on the edge or ruin would hire me to be their standards wonk.

What? No takers? Afraid of being singed by the Bird?

Wusses.

Anyway, I’ll put in my request to the HTML WG and we’ll see if I’m acceptable to the powers-that-be.