On Wednesday 2017-07-05 20:58 -0700, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron ([email protected]) wrote: > > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield > > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter. > > I support the updated formal objection. Thanks Tantek for drafting it. > > I've raised these issues also here: > https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/145 > > Where Domenic also pointed out that the following are being copy/pasted: > > * Web Sockets API > * Web Workers > * HTML Canvas 2D Context > > And the WG should cease to publish any errata for "specs under > maintenance" (as those are all WHATWG, I think), except for > "view-mode", which we should maybe consider asking them to obsolete.
To follow up here: the deadline for this review was extended to
July 14 (Friday). Thus I was able to update the objection, and it
now consists of the text below. It could be further updated between
now and Friday if further changes are needed.
-David
=====
We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications that
the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (as shown by active
implementer participation and implementation, including by Mozilla
in Firefox).
We would optionally like to see W3C republish the current versions
as a terminal NOTE, citing the WHATWG version as normative at the
top of the NOTE in large text as we would for any other abandoned
document for which better, more recent, or more accurate versions
exist elsewhere.
Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track
deliverables:
* HTML5.2: at this point we are not aware of *any implementer*
(people actually committing code to browsers) paying any
practical (in that it affects code) attention to HTML5.2,
especially to any differences between HTML5.2 and WHATWG HTML,
despite having editors from Microsoft and Google.
* microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, and
there is no need for any W3C time spent on this.
* DOM 4 / DOM 4.1: likewise, the WHATWG maintains the DOM
specification, and there is no need for W3C to duplicate that
work.
* Web Sockets API: likewise
* Web Workers: likewise
* HTML Canvas 2D Context: likewise
Likewise, we request that the maintenance of errata for these
specifications listed under "Specification Maintenance":
DOM specifications
Progress Events
Server-sent Events
Web Storage
Web Messaging
be left to the WHATWG, which I believe is maintaining them.
Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of
ways.
* It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a
number of organizations including Mozilla actively participate in.
* This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction,
discourages collaboration, and demonstrates either
neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of
chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG, which is
unacceptable behavior (and counter to W3C PWE).
* Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion
that HTML5.2 is providing any kind of meaningful update to HTML,
when meaningful updates (i.e., things that are implemented or
fixed in browsers that web developers can then depend on) are only
based on WHATWG HTML at this point.
--
๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐
๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
