Sam Ruby’s take on the CNet HTML5 article:
Balanced piece that neither sweeps under the rug nor sensationalizes the differences that we are working through.
To me, this is the same as saying, “Nothing to see here folks. Just be sure to step over the dead body on your way out.”
I still have not had resolution on several issues, and have not yet received a response from the W3C HTML WG co-chairs when I asked for a status of when I may expect resolution.
I believe most of my change proposals will not be successful, except perhaps Issue 89, on removing the idioms section, and Issue 100, on removing srcdoc: the former easily has no place in a HTML specification; the latter is just plain ugly as sin. Whatever the decision on any of these items, though, I won’t be formally objecting to the results. The most polite way I can express my feelings about the W3C at this moment is that it isn’t my happy place.
I also believe that the work on HTML5 will continue, but that the W3C will, more or less, allow Ian to do what he wants. I think there will continue to be two documents, and neither will be the same. I think these battles will happen, again and again, and there will never be a true resolution. I also think that the concept of a HTML standard has now been irreparably harmed— being redefined into being whatever the dominant browser companies want, regardless of other community interests.
However, I would love to be proven wrong. All across the board.
As for me, I’m focusing on my first self-published book, which is about HTML5. Whatever happens with the HTML5 spec, all I can do now is try to help folks make the best of it.
