Comments on: New HTML Working Group http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/ Music and Technology, but NO TECHNO! Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:35:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Web Standards Fluster Cuck - Alex Barnett blog http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-84762 The Web Standards Fluster Cuck - Alex Barnett blog Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:45:27 +0000 http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-84762 [...] The Web Standards Fluster Cuck Clucking bell, Molly Holzshlag really has kicked the web standards beehive with a blog post expressing her great discontent with the W3C and WaSP. Now, before you head off and read the post and the 60+ comments, here's a bit of background on why I find this post of interest (and rather depressing): I've been following Molly's work for a while now. She first came on to my radar when after providing an update on the progress made between the Microsoft IE, VS and .NET teams and the Web Standards Project (WaSP). That was in 2005. Then in January 2007, I noted Molly's announcement that she had left WASP to join the IE team on a contract basis to work on standards and interoperability issues. I was pleased to see the IE team was making a real effort. Entirely seperately, but not entirely, in October of 2006 Tim Berners-Lee called for the reinvention of HTML. His call to action caused a bit of a hoo-ha at the time. What's that got to do with Molly? Well, as noted, some of the reactions to TBL's post varied from skepticism, to 'About time!' - and here's the connection with Molly's latest post - to  what role the WHATWG will play in what presumably could be a competing effort to the HTML 5 (or XHTML5) spec in progress at the time. However, I was pleased to hear TBL's public calling for progress and hoped we might see some of this progrss after HTML's 8-year stagnation. Then in July 2007, we had the news that HTML5 was being considered by the W3C. Confused? You should be. So after my ridiculously inadequate backgrounder, you can now go ahead and read Molly's post, along with the contributions be the cast of characters (the commenters), some of whom are affiliated with various competing factions wrestling with the future of web standards and HTML, who somehow manage to converge the various threads (now including a Fear of Air, the Semantic Web, microformats, Silverlight, XML, community, accessibility, transparency and who-knows-what-else) into what looks like a complete political mess (read: fluster cuck). Yes, it is depressing,, but such is the business of web standards agreement. A messy business indeed...There's even a YouTube video covering the drama - HTML5 trailer - Find your Hero. - Thanks to Thomas Vander Wal for the link to Molly's post.   Posted: Aug 13 2007, 06:58 PM by alexbarnett | with no comments Filed under: Web, microformats, Programming, VisualStudio, .NET, Internet, crap, semanticweb, XML, HTML, Adobe, IE, Apollo, community, silverlight, HTML5 [...] [...] The Web Standards Fluster Cuck Clucking bell, Molly Holzshlag really has kicked the web standards beehive with a blog post expressing her great discontent with the W3C and WaSP. Now, before you head off and read the post and the 60+ comments, here’s a bit of background on why I find this post of interest (and rather depressing): I’ve been following Molly’s work for a while now. She first came on to my radar when after providing an update on the progress made between the Microsoft IE, VS and .NET teams and the Web Standards Project (WaSP). That was in 2005. Then in January 2007, I noted Molly’s announcement that she had left WASP to join the IE team on a contract basis to work on standards and interoperability issues. I was pleased to see the IE team was making a real effort. Entirely seperately, but not entirely, in October of 2006 Tim Berners-Lee called for the reinvention of HTML. His call to action caused a bit of a hoo-ha at the time. What’s that got to do with Molly? Well, as noted, some of the reactions to TBL’s post varied from skepticism, to ‘About time!’ - and here’s the connection with Molly’s latest post - to  what role the WHATWG will play in what presumably could be a competing effort to the HTML 5 (or XHTML5) spec in progress at the time. However, I was pleased to hear TBL’s public calling for progress and hoped we might see some of this progrss after HTML’s 8-year stagnation. Then in July 2007, we had the news that HTML5 was being considered by the W3C. Confused? You should be. So after my ridiculously inadequate backgrounder, you can now go ahead and read Molly’s post, along with the contributions be the cast of characters (the commenters), some of whom are affiliated with various competing factions wrestling with the future of web standards and HTML, who somehow manage to converge the various threads (now including a Fear of Air, the Semantic Web, microformats, Silverlight, XML, community, accessibility, transparency and who-knows-what-else) into what looks like a complete political mess (read: fluster cuck). Yes, it is depressing,, but such is the business of web standards agreement. A messy business indeed…There’s even a YouTube video covering the drama - HTML5 trailer - Find your Hero. - Thanks to Thomas Vander Wal for the link to Molly’s post.   Posted: Aug 13 2007, 06:58 PM by alexbarnett | with no comments Filed under: Web, microformats, Programming, VisualStudio, .NET, Internet, crap, semanticweb, XML, HTML, Adobe, IE, Apollo, community, silverlight, HTML5 [...]

]]> By: Boris http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28198 Boris Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:41:12 +0000 http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28198 Joe, this line of questioning reminds me of <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=I71ha4T4rUI" rel="nofollow">that Jon Stewart bit about how Fox and CNN use question marks to not really ask anything pertinent but rather spread misinformation</a>. (I'd leave a choice quote from it here but refrain out of respect... ;) Joe, this line of questioning reminds me of that Jon Stewart bit about how Fox and CNN use question marks to not really ask anything pertinent but rather spread misinformation.

(I’d leave a choice quote from it here but refrain out of respect… ;)

]]> By: Karl Dubost http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28196 Karl Dubost Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:23:44 +0000 http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28196 Hi Joe, The W3C can give you the reason that is announced in Tim's message. People and community asked for it. It doesn't come out of the hat. The next step is to have the charters reviewed, to maximize the participation, browser developers have been positively responsive so far with for sure comments, but that is part of the game. And something that everyone tend to forget, it is said "plan to charter", which means in plain English (far better than my usual broken prose) that it is not yet created. About WHATWG, I can't speak for them. At least for some browser developers, they stated positive position (look for example at www-html for public statements). Just something, we can notice. WHATWG has already transfered part of its work to W3C in the WebAPI WG for example. There are also issues with IPs. Having a legal framework where you can guarantee that there will not be patents coming to bite you later on is important to have stability for the final developers and users. Yes that's not really fun, but we have to deal with this in our world. Hi Joe,

The W3C can give you the reason that is announced in Tim’s message. People and community asked for it. It doesn’t come out of the hat. The next step is to have the charters reviewed, to maximize the participation, browser developers have been positively responsive so far with for sure comments, but that is part of the game. And something that everyone tend to forget, it is said “plan to charter”, which means in plain English (far better than my usual broken prose) that it is not yet created.

About WHATWG, I can’t speak for them. At least for some browser developers, they stated positive position (look for example at www-html for public statements). Just something, we can notice. WHATWG has already transfered part of its work to W3C in the WebAPI WG for example.

There are also issues with IPs. Having a legal framework where you can guarantee that there will not be patents coming to bite you later on is important to have stability for the final developers and users. Yes that’s not really fun, but we have to deal with this in our world.

]]> By: Joe Clark http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28156 Joe Clark Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:51:48 +0000 http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-28156 If we shouldn’t have multiple versions of HTML (we already do: 3.2, 4.0, 4.01; Strict, Transtional, Frameset), then why should we have multiple new HTML working groups? Can the W3C give us reasons not to believe the announcement is a response to the fact that someone *other* than the W3C has been plausibly writing a spec? If WHAT WG weren't doing a plausible job, would this new group have been announced? Was it announced because the W3C cannot bear the thought of anyone other than the W3C defining the specs for the Web? Is this not another attempt to assert a monopoly position, one that is rather doomed to fail and actually undermine the stated goals of the group? After all, W3C HTML 5 and WHAT WG “HTML5” cannot both exist and be supported, can they? (Whatever happens when we get to elements and attributes with identical names in both specs but different definitions – dl/dt/dd, for example?) If we shouldn’t have multiple versions of HTML (we already do: 3.2, 4.0, 4.01; Strict, Transtional, Frameset), then why should we have multiple new HTML working groups?

Can the W3C give us reasons not to believe the announcement is a response to the fact that someone *other* than the W3C has been plausibly writing a spec?

If WHAT WG weren’t doing a plausible job, would this new group have been announced?

Was it announced because the W3C cannot bear the thought of anyone other than the W3C defining the specs for the Web?

Is this not another attempt to assert a monopoly position, one that is rather doomed to fail and actually undermine the stated goals of the group? After all, W3C HTML 5 and WHAT WG “HTML5” cannot both exist and be supported, can they? (Whatever happens when we get to elements and attributes with identical names in both specs but different definitions – dl/dt/dd, for example?)

]]> By: HTML Reloaded, World Web War 2.0 « FrogBSD Blog http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-27834 HTML Reloaded, World Web War 2.0 « FrogBSD Blog Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:24:49 +0000 http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2006/10/27/new-html-working-group/#comment-27834 [...] 有一組不隸屬 W3C 的人員另組的 WHATWG，制定 HTML5/XHTML5, Web Form 2.0 一段時間了，發言人 Ian Hickson 表示 W3C 並未知會他們。 [...] [...] 有一組不隸屬 W3C 的人員另組的 WHATWG，制定 HTML5/XHTML5, Web Form 2.0 一段時間了，發言人 Ian Hickson 表示 W3C 並未知會他們。 [...]

]]>