Comments on the HTML WG Charter (http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html )
===============================================================================
Daniel Glazman, DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS
1. If I do trust entirely the individual Chris Wilson for the chair of this
Working Group, it's with deep concern I see a major browser vendor take
the chair of the most visible WG in the Consortium. From my point of view,
desktop browser vendors should be banned from the chair of that Group,
to avoid (a) bad feedback from the press and the community (b) avoid
issues between the WG and the chairman's parent company about the
directions taken by the Group.
I know Microsoft already had W3C chairs in the past - or even present - but
the HTML WG is different in its very high visibility, and I certainly fear
the "Microsoft puts its hand on HTML" press articles we're going to face.
Given that, and if a Microsoft employee is confirmed as the chair of this WG,
I think a co-chairman totally independent from all desktop browser vendors
should be added not only to garantee that there will be an independent chair
during controversial discussions with Microsoft being one the parties involved,
but also to be the "glue" between the WG and the WHAT-WG.
If such a co-chairman is not added, I think this WG will ultimately face so
deep tensions and problems that the resulting specification will be a weak
compromise, and that's certainly the last thing we need for HTML after so
many years of lag. In other terms, this WG will probably fail without that.
2. I have concerns about the 4 yearly face-to-face meetings and the conference
calls since a lot of WHAT-WG members are individuals who cannot afford
travels around the world on their own budget nor can spend a lot of money
in costly phone conference calls. I think that at least the "in good standing"
rules should be modified for this WG, and ideally only one FTF a year should
happen.
I also have concerns about the feasibility of conference calls if there are more
than 25-30 people in the Group. I still remember how worked the HTML WG in 96-97
and the conference calls were really hard to follow because of the number of
attendees.
3. the charter says that "the Group will not assume that an SGML parser is used
for 'classic HTML'". In that case, I have no idea what means "a valid document".
4. I think it's totally utopic to think we can have two interoperable major browsers
on HTML 5 before december 2010, interoperability being guaranteed by a test suite.
5. "Availability of authoring tools and validation tools" should be a major item in
the success criteria list because of the past inability of the Consortium WGs to
design specifications that can actually be handled by editing tools. We hear too
many times that the technical complexity will be hidden to users by editing tools
but editing tools are never or rarely taken under consideration during specs' design.
6. I think user community adoption as a success criterion implies not only having
all proceedings public, but also finding a better way of dealing with user feedback.
We're just bad on public feedback, and in the case of HTML, that is unacceptable.
7. I have concerns about the following Other Delivrables item:
The Group will ensure that validation tools are available, possibly from
third parties
how can the WG ensure that a third-party makes a validation tool for HTML ?
The implementation of the validation tool should be in the charter for this WG
or totally left to 3rd parties ; in that latter case, the WG should only make sure
the implementation is possible, but cannot ensure such a tool is made available.
8. I think the Milestones are totally unrealistic. I think we'll need years only
for the test suite... And no REC without test suite...
9. About Relationship to External Groups, I think this whole section is a shame.
We all know this WG's future work is deeply influenced by the work already done,
and often already implemented, by the WHAT-WG. So the HTML WG should not attempt
to establish a liaison with the WHAT-WG, it must establish a liaison with it and
that liaison must be formal. The fact that the WHAT-WG is not itself formal is
irrelevant here. If this is not done, this WG will fail and HTML will remain in
the hands of the WHAT-WG. As soon as we ultimately have a successor to HTML 4, I
don't really care, but this will be a death knell for the W3C.
What's the purpose of this WG again ? (a) acknowledge that XHTML 2 is not the
current right direction for the web and go back on tracks (b) acknowledge that
the principles behind the creation of the WHAT-WG (backwards compat with HTML 4,
one spec, extension of html forms) were the right thing to do despite of the
initial harsh criticism the WHAT-WG faced.
Ideally, the new HTML WG and the WHAT-WG should become one and only thing.
Unfortunately, and this is certainly the main concern expressed by the current
list of comments, I fail to see how this Charter is a compromise between the
two organizations. It really seems to me that the new HTML WG is made to take
over without even saying "so long and thanks for the fish".
I can see firm, too firm positions on both sides, W3C and WHAT-WG. I deeply
regret that some interpersonal considerations are sometimes taking precedence
on "leading the web to its full potential", in particular when all people are
of good will.
10. About Participation, I already wrote above that I think Good Standing rules have
to be adapted for this WG.
11. Communication : the HTML WG pages should be entirely public.
12. I think a very important goal of this WG is also to make sure the future HTML
is interoperably rendered on mobile devices. I think the user experience on
different mobile devices should be specified interoperably, probably in a joint
work between the HTML WG and the Mobile WGs, and possibly the CSS WG but I'm not
sure yet.
A user should NOT notice any HTML change when he/she changes of cellphone.