tech support 8

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 26 April 2012

WHATWG as W3C Community Group in Name Only

Posted on 06:30 by Unknown


As of Monday, April 23, The W3C has announced that it is looking for a new editor for the HTML Working Group specifically tasked with shepherding HTML5 through the process until it reaches a formal recommendation. Ian Hickson (Hixie) made the request for a call for his replacement so he could focus on ongoing HTML development, such as HTML.Next. With that announcement the W3C is also making the following changes:




  • The W3C is beginning its replacement editor search specifically for HTML5 and HTML Canvas 2D Context to carry them both through the Recommendation phase of the specification process. The W3C expects the process to take 30 days, though it isn't clear if that means it will have candidates to consider at the end of the 30 days or a new editor by then.

  • The W3C reminds us that W3C Community Groups and HTML WG Task Forces can continue to submit proposals to the specification.

  • Hixie, the current HTML5 editor, will continue working on the WHATWG HTML specification. Though it will be versionless, the W3C expects it to spin off proposals to its HTML WG.

  • The W3C states that editors of "Recommendation-Level" specifications (specs going through the W3C process, with versions) and authors of HTML.next (the WHATWG versionless specs) are free to make changes directly to their own specs, but the W3C is urging them to work together.

  • The W3C is expanding the W3C HTML WG charter to allow it to work on HTML.Next at the same time the HTML5 specification is snaking its way through the official process. Once that happens, the W3C will be looking for more editors.

  • The W3C is making clear that it plans to continue its partnership with WHATWG.




The W3C also created the Web Hypertext Application Technology Community Group on Monday. Given that W3C Community Groups allow open participation and can submit proposals for the specification, it looked like the W3C and WHATWG might be coming together and possibly opening up to more community feedback.




The potential and hope of moving all HTML5 (etc) development under one organization was quickly dashed when Hixie sent this message to the WHATWG mailing list:




[…] [I]t means we have a clear patent
policy. Historically, we've relied on the W3C HTML working group for this,
but as the W3C has focused on stablising their HTML5 snapshot, newer
features have not enjoyed the same coverage. […] This will basically have no effect
on how the WHATWG operates, except that when we make use of the W3C
Community Group "Final Specification Agreement" (FSA) mechanism, anyone
who wishes to co-sign the agreement [2] will be invited to do so.



The W3C Web Hypertext Application Technology Community Group echoes that message:




This is the W3C community group for the WHATWG, a mechanism through which the WHATWG can publish specifications with patent agreements.



At first glance it may have looked like WHATWG was coming together with the W3C, and by using a W3C Community Group allowing anyone to participate, but that does not appear to be the case. Instead this move seems to primarily be a method to bring WHATWG into the patent protection that the W3C enjoys through some of its partnerships, as suggested by Steve Faulkner:




but the Hypertext Application Technology Community Group appears to be
nothing more than a ploy to get microsoft on board at the WHATWG via the
provision of a patent policy.



Any hints of bringing WHATWG into the W3C fold appear to be gone. Any hope that anyone can participate appears to be dashed as well, since it doesn't look like the Community Group will have its own mailing list and the forum will likely be ignored.




Unfortunately, I was quick to sign up for the Web Hypertext Application Technology Community Group but took far too long to realize it wasn't going to change the process of participation. I suppose I could blame patent chaos for all of this, or I could just accept that the HTML5 process isn't going to change.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in html, patents, standards, W3C, whatwg | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Copying Content Styled with Text-Transform
    Using the CSS property text-transform to automatically shift copy to uppercase has been popular for a while now, but a combination of a rec...
  • HTML5 Finally Gets... a Logo?
    Start Rant With all the debate about elements , attributes , semantic meaning and who really owns HTML5 , it's thrilling to see that t...
  • New Google Analytics Features
    In the article " Google Analytics Now More Powerful, Flexible and Intelligent " from last Tuesday (yes, I know I'm behind on t...
  • Speaking: Accessible Web Apps & Standards
    I will be speaking twice in September, both of them sponsored by Infotech Niagara. If you're in the Buffalo area, these are great opport...
  • Speaking at WordCamp Buffalo 2013
    This Saturday I will be speaking at Buffalo's second WordCamp . Last year was a great day-long event filled with many good speakers (not...
  • CSS-D Finds New Home at evolt.org
    The incredibly popular, active, and valuable mailing list devoted to Cascading Style Sheets, CSS-Discuss (css-d), has moved its hosting to ...
  • Google Chrome Pre-Installed on Sony PCs
    Google cut a deal with Sony's PC division to distribute Chrome as a pre-installed browser on their Vaio PCs. Google claims to be in talk...
  • Test in Lynx and Print, It's Your Job
    I have admittedly not taken the time to attend An Event Apart any of the times it's been held, but I do tend to follow the #aea hashtag...
  • Netscape Navigator 2.01 Celebrates 16th Anniversary
    As of March 18, 2011 Netscape Navigator version 2.01 has turned 16 years old . Back when it was released in 1996 it was the bees knees. It i...
  • Thanksgiving, Technology, and Just Picking a Fight
    My logs tell me that nobody took this 2011 plea seriously. I blame the typeface. Last year on Thanksgiving I made the case for ignoring soci...

Categories

  • accessibility
  • Adobe
  • analytics
  • Apple
  • apps
  • ARIA
  • Bing
  • Blink
  • Brightkite
  • browser
  • Buzz
  • Chrome
  • clients
  • css
  • design
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Flash
  • fonts
  • food
  • Foursquare
  • g11n
  • geolocation
  • globalization
  • Google
  • Gowalla
  • html
  • i18n
  • ICANN
  • infographic
  • Instagram
  • internationalization
  • internet
  • Internet Explorer
  • JavaScript
  • JAWS
  • Klout
  • L10n
  • law
  • localization
  • Lynx
  • Mapquest
  • Microsoft
  • mobile
  • Netscape
  • ning
  • Opera
  • patents
  • picplz
  • Plus
  • print
  • privacy
  • project management
  • QR
  • rant
  • RSS
  • Safari
  • SCVNGR
  • search
  • SEM
  • SEO
  • social media
  • Sony
  • speaking
  • standards
  • SVG
  • touch
  • translation
  • Twitter
  • typefaces
  • usability
  • UX
  • Verizon
  • video
  • W3C
  • WAI
  • WCAG
  • WebKit
  • whatwg
  • Wired
  • WOFF
  • xhtml
  • Yahoo
  • YouTube

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (39)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ▼  2012 (63)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ▼  April (8)
      • Don't Blame Opera, Blame Devs
      • WHATWG as W3C Community Group in Name Only
      • Dining in the Dark
      • Speaking at Buffalo's Entrepalooza 2012 - May 10
      • Where's the Viewport Size Data?
      • Announcing PrintShame.com
      • More Evidence of the Need for Print Styles
      • W3C CSS Odor Module Released
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ►  2011 (67)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (8)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2010 (100)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2009 (51)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (2)
  • ►  2003 (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2002 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2001 (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2000 (4)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  1999 (7)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile