w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2007-04-27 to 2007-05-04.
104 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?
- Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?
- HTML5 Specification Editors
- Decision process
1. Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?
The deliverables section of our charter calls for A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents and applications on the World Wide Web
. On 9 Apr 2007, Mozilla Foundation, Opera Software ASA, and Apple Inc., who claim copyright on HTML5 and WF2, offered a
Proposal to Adopt HTML5.
Shall we adopt these documents as our basis for review?
A "yes" response indicates a willingness to use these documents as the basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going forward. It does not constitute endorsement of the entire feature set specified in these documents, nor does it indicate that you feel that the documents in their present state should become a W3C Recommendation or even a W3C Working Draft.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 88 |
| no | 4 |
| concur | 7 |
| abstain | 3 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC (Ian Hickson) | abstain | |
| Apple Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | HTML5 and WF2 represent years of work by an active community, and it would be wasteful to throw that away. Also, the community is backed by a good set of browser engine manufacturers, and it is important to keep them in the W3C WG. |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf) | yes | Basing the spec on HTML 5 by the WHATWG would not only save the W3C HTML 5 Working Group a considerable amount of time, it would also save us from having to go through the same amount of work for interop testing, error handling, documentation, etc. |
| Opera Software AS (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | yes | It's a large, well-researched body of work, but as noted, it should just be used as a starting point, and subject to change. I also feel strongly that any work on forms should be done specifically in the forms task force, and that it should be done in unison and in good faith with the XForms WG, with an eye towards an upgrade path to XForms. |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | yes | As long as the document gets a proper review period when it is static and is not continuously changing |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | no | Technical: The requirements that drove divergent technical approaches in XForms and WF2 must both be considered. For example, with "customer" implications, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0434.html Process: This is a process question, not a technical one, so here are my process reasons (text and url below): Regarding the Forms component of HTML 5, the HTML and Forms working groups are chartered to work together on forms that align with XForms. The purpose is to allow representation of HTML 5 forms by XForms constructs, which in turn gives an upward migration path for HTML 6 to adopt more features from XForms as their need becomes evident. The proposal should read "Shall we adopt HTML 5 and XForms as our specification text for review?" (since the HTML 5 proposal already contains the WF2 component). To adopt only HTML 5 and not XForms as "the" starting point immediately sets the wrong path for the working group, some of whose members seem completely bent around ignoring the charters and the prior W3C recommendation (XForms). We have to do something to get these folks turned around; indeed, one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how a particular simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather on having developed WF2. I look forward to the merge and to fulfilling our role in the W3C of producing its forms technology. For more details, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0392.html |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith (sideshowbarker)) | abstain | |
| Invited Experts with Member Access | ||
| W3C Invited Experts | ||
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | yes | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | yes | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | yes | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | concur | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | yes | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | The WHATWG HTML5 specification is significantly more representative of the current state of the web than the HTML4 specification. Therefore, it is clearly the most useful starting point for this working group. |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | concur | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | The "HTML5" and "WF2" documents reflect years of working directly with web authors and implementors to carefully evolve HTML 4 into a language that better suits the challenges and desires of web authors today. This makes the work an ideal candidate for official specification and a starting point of value so great that ignoring it would be disastrous. |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | no | |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | Years of excellent development should not be discarded. As the question rightly emphasises, this does not prevent further debate on Web Applications 1.0 and Web Forms 2.0 features by members who were not party to the WHATWG process, this is absolutely the right thing to do. |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | concur | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | Provides a single focus for review. |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | yes | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | yes | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | yes | A lot of work has already gone into HTML5, and, if not adopted, I believe we will simply waste time reinserting what has already been written. It's easier to "take away" than to "add to". |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | yes | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | Basing the spec on the WHATWG's would save considerable time and duplication of work (especially the interoperability testing and error handling), as well as providing new workable, documented features sourced from developers and implementers. |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | no | i concur with almost every point made by terje bless in the Formal Objection archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0583.html in addition, i am greatly disturbed by the implications of the question, in light of the copyright claims on HTML5 and WF2 by a number of developers. we are supposed to be evolving HTML4x into something better, not something proprietary, which can then be implemented unilaterally, thereby pushing the HTML WG in the direction of previous revisions to HTML prior to HTML4x -- the agenda of implementors drove the development of the language so that it is open to misuse, and then -- when corrections are suggested -- insist that it is imperative that a vendor-neutral standards setting body preserve and protect clearly underformed and malformed markup. |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | There are no serious alternatives available and starting from scratch would be a waste of effort. |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | abstain | As has been clarified, the adoption does not constitute an adoption of the content, merely that this is the point to go from, as a result, I change my vote to Blank |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Sam Sneddon | yes | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | I see no reason to throw away all the work that has been done by the WHATWG, and then possibly end up with the same thing again. |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | no | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no>. |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | I agree with others that given the amount of work that has already gone into Web Applications 1.0, it would be counterproductive not to start with it as the basis of review. It seems like there is more contention with Web Forms 2.0. On the other hand, Web Forms 2.0 is much more detailed than XForms Transitional. If I could split my vote on the two documents, I would vote "Yes" for Web Applications 1.0 and "Concur" for Web Forms 2.0. However, I am confident that the chairs can steer the work effectively regardless of the decision. |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | concur | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | yes | Starting from scratch would be a waste of time. The work of WHATWG concerning HTML 5 should be a good start for W3C's HTML WG. |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | yes | WA2/HTML5 is represents several years of work of implementors and authors. Ignoring it would be a waste of our time. |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | I would like the position to be that we go through the features of WHAT WG's proposal individually. We should, however, use their work as a starting point for ours. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | yes | |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | yes | I don't agree with everything in Web Apps 1.0 and haven't even reviewed all of it yet, but in essence it seems to be quite a good document and it would be insane (and perhaps even impolite) to ignore all that work and start from scratch. |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | The WHATWG specifications are well developed and adopting them as a starting point is our only real hope of meeting the deadlines in our current road map. |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | yes | |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | i do not see how it should not help us . |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | yes | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | It is unreasonable not to adopt WA1 and WF2 as a basis of our new HTML. Set those two specs as a starting point, we could make the spec REC by the date what the charter sais. |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | yes | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | It would be a waste of time to do otherwise. |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | yes | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | It seems logical to re-use the work already done on better defining HTML4 features. Still need to review new elements/DOM. |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | concur | Considerable work and testing went into the current WHAT WG's proposal. And it shouldn't be discarded. However, it is very browser-vendor oriented in origin, perspective, and principle, and goals. Their work could be a basis for discussion. But each individual feature of it would need to be examined and accepted/or rejected. Considerable work also went into HTML 4.01 Strict. WHAT WG's proposal seems to to ignore a lot of that and base much of its design on less rigorous specifications (HTML 4.01 Transitional, possibly even HTML 3.2). Adding presentational elements and attributes to HTML 5 would be a step backwards for authoring. HTML 5 should promote the modeling the logical structure and semantics of information, not its presentation. Presentation is the job of CSS. Deprecate (or obsolete) existing presentational markup while allowing it to gracefully degrade in user agents. When putting in any new 'features', do it in a way that older browsers and other user agents can still access basic content. |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes |
2. Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?
Shall we name the W3C's next-generation HTML specification "HTML 5"?
Note that this is subject to review by various other parties in the W3C process; see clarification 18 Apr from Connolly.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 86 |
| no | 3 |
| concur | 9 |
| abstain | 4 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC (Ian Hickson) | abstain | |
| Apple Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | Although the specs include aspects other than what HTML currently has, HTML is still the core of it. Also, it is the most well-known acronym (maybe after WWW) in the web. |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf) | yes | Anything else would be misleading. |
| Opera Software AS (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | yes | The last version was HTML 4.01... maybe HTML 5.0 would be better, for when we come out with incremental updates. |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | no | I would prefer 5.01 |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | concur | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith (sideshowbarker)) | abstain | |
| Invited Experts with Member Access | ||
| W3C Invited Experts | ||
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | yes | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | concur | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | yes | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | yes | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | yes | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | yes | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | yes | Simplier is better ! |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | For consistency's sake in both the implementation arena and (more importantly) the web author arena, the spec should reflect the evolution from its predecessor both in type and in name. |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | I don't have any name better than "HTML 5". |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | yes | |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | concur | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | I think it stands a better chance of wide adoption of it appears as a version update to the HTML spec. |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | yes | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | concur | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | yes | This just seems to be the logical thing to do. I don't believe that this spec will revolutionize HTML but instead improve on HTML 4.01. Therefore, it makes more sense just to increment the version number. |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | yes | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | To me, "HTML5" sounds an incremental change to the language and avoids coming across as a paradigm shift. That said, like Matthew Ratzloff I'm a little dubious of how the XHTML variant will be named. |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | no | i would prefer if we develop Canonical HTML -- that is, the bedrock document upon which all dialects of XHTML and XML will hitherforth reference; therefore, i think we should drop the numbers (especially if this is to be the final iteration of HTML); why not just call it what it is: HTML -- more specifically, Canonical HTML |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | It has been known as HTML5 for the past 3 years and there have been no sensible alternatives proposed, so yes. |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | abstain | I have no preference at this stage of the process, but would be happy to use html5 as a working title |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Sam Sneddon | yes | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | I think this is logical. |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | yes | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | Seems quite sensible to me. |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | yes | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | concur | Although I won't prefer HTML 5, because this new Markup language version would be closer to XML/XHTML than to SGML/HTML, I cast my vote to the majority. Suggestion: what about the name "XHTML 1.5"? |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | yes | It's simple, straightforward and easy to remember. Also debating about names is usually a waste of time. |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | I think this is obvious. However, I'm worried about the XHTML name. I don't think it would be fair to the XHTML WG to call ours XHTML 5. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | no | It should be (x)html5 |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | abstain | I got the impression that some of WHATWG's WebApps 1.0 also specs non-HTML, like javascript. If non-HTML gets specced, then labelling that spec "HTML" could be misleading and might even have negative side effects that we cannot yet see coming. (I might have misunderstood this about Web Apps 1.0, but when I brought this up on the public-html list, nobody responded.) |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | Any other title would be confusing, especially if we decide "yes" on the first question. |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | Only if above question is approved by majority vote. |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | yes | |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | concur | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | concur | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | It's the logical next step after "HTML 4". |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | yes | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | What else? Seems logical |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | yes | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes |
3. HTML5 Specification Editors
Shall the editors of HTML5 be Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt?.
See also Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt of 20 Apr 2007.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 78 |
| no | 1 |
| concur | 15 |
| abstain | 7 |
(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | HTML5 Specification Editors | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC (Ian Hickson) | abstain | Assuming the three votes carry, I would be happy to volunteer as editor. I would also be happy to work with David Hyatt. |
| Apple Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | They are competent to do the job, and have worked on the WhatWG specs, thus know them beforehand. Also, they have agreed to invest large amounts of their time in editing the spec(s). |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf) | abstain | I'm abstaining. The current choices are both excellent but, as another voter put it, I too am somewhat concerned that they do not represent a wide enough diversity of opinion. I wouldn't want to hold up the working group but I'd prefer one more editor. |
| Opera Software AS (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | abstain | I'm abstaining even though I have serious reservations. Hickson and Hyatt are both excellent choices for editor, but I am concerned that they may not represent a wide enough diversity of opinion. Statements that they don't intend to attempt to get consensus (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070501#l-34) disturb me. As previously noted by another voter, the option of adding an additional editor is not considered here. My rationale for abstaining is that I don't want to hold up the process, but I would prefer more serious treatment of this issue. |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | yes | |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | concur | The question is poorly worded as it leads one to believe that *the* editors are being chosen, but DanC comments here (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0424.html) that the link above is a normative part of the question, and it allows for other editors. Based on that, changed to concur. My original objection: To properly fulfill the requirement of working together on a joint task force for forms, it is imperative that a Forms WG member be included as an editor. |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith (sideshowbarker)) | abstain | |
| Invited Experts with Member Access | ||
| W3C Invited Experts | ||
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | concur | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | yes | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | yes | Would prefer just Hixie, but this appears to be the next best thing. |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | yes | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | abstain | Yes to the question : "shall Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt be editors of HTML5 ?". We could need more/other editors, and the question seems closed. |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | concur | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | Ian Hickson has been the sole editor of the specs up for review and has proved to be an extremely valuable asset to the community as a whole when turning its desires into features and sensible spec text. Dave Hyatt's experience with multiple browser vendors and multiple W3C working groups also places him well to be co-editor of this specification. |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | no | |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | I hold high respect for both men in their past contributions to standards and web technology development, I have absolute faith that their viewpoints are in line with the best interests of the internet and their corporate affiliations and histories apply a balance to those of the co-chairs. |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | yes | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | I've read many of both gentlemen's posts and have read posts by both in other forums. They both seem to have an expert-level understanding of the issues involved and appear willing to work together cooperatively. |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | ||
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | concur | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | concur | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | concur | I'm not real familiar with the work or ethics of Ian or Dave so I will concur with the majority and assume they know what's best. |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | concur | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | Ian Hickson has demonstrated excellent editing and technical research abilities with the WHATWG and is employed by a non-vendor. I'm less familiar with Dave Hyatt, apart from his technical expertise (which I gleaned from bugzilla.mozilla.org and the Safari blog over the years). |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | abstain | i am abstaining from this vote until Questions 1 and 2 are decided. |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | concur | If the two nominees are happy to do the job. |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Sam Sneddon | yes | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | I think it is good to have more than one editor, and think Dave Hyatt is a good choice next to Ian Hickson. |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | Definitely Ian. Hyatt probably is a good choice too. |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | yes | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no> and following messages; in particular the reservations on which horse to put at what side of whose cart. |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | Given that it is likely that Web Applications 1.0 will be taken as the basis of work, and that Ian has the best knowledge of the document, it makes sense to have him as an editor. I agree with those who've said that it would be better not to have the sole responsibility lie with a single person. |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | yes | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | yes | |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | concur | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | concur | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | Yes; provided they understand that the role of editor does not have any kind of final decision-making power, but is primarily that of an aggregator. I believe that's understood. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | yes | |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | yes | This is a conditional yes. The only problem I have is that what Dave says through email is so often so very unclear, due to his bad quoting style (typically quoting entire messages, preceding them with a single sentence). IMO everybody, but *especially* editors and chairs should do their very best to leave as little room for misunderstanding as possible. We already have a chair who is often very unclear. I hope Dave will do much better in his role as editor. |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | abstain | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | Both are well qualified as editors, and I'm not aware of anyone else receiving and accepting a nomination, so an objection is a call for extending the deadline for nomination. (Adequate time for nomination has passed, in my opinion.) Also, since Ian will be keeping the WHATWG spec a strict superset of W3C HTML, having a different W3C editor would simply duplicate effort. |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | concur | |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | yes | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | Wonders who'll be the authors. But yes, I don't disagree with this choice. |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | concur | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | concur | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | yes | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes |
4. Decision process
Consensus is a core value of W3C. Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. A "no" vote in this survey is a formal objection. An individual who registers a Formal Objection should cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection.
Please put your arguments (or a pointer to your arguments) in the rationale field.
For each question:
- If the results indicate consensus, the question carries.
- Otherwise, the chairs will consider the rationale behind the formal objections and decide whether to let the question carry despite these objections.
We'll take a week to allow WG participants to respond to this questionnaires and then the chairs will announce the result.
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Google LLC (Ian Hickson) | |
| Apple Inc. (Adele Peterson) | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | |
| University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf) | |
| Opera Software AS (Lars Erik Bolstad) | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | Generally, this decision is being made too soon and in a vacuum of leadership from the chairs. The chairs are not required to take a proposal to vote if it countermands the charters of working groups. Those who made the proposal can then formally object, and I suppose the director can then explain why the objections are overruled or he can amend the charters. Should the latter occur, I would say it seems a shame to cut and run from the carefully thought out strategy without giving any real effort at compromise and working together. I think that not enough thought is going into the fact that although we now have 400 invited experts, we still have responsibilities to a very much greater number (in the billions now) to get this right. |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith (sideshowbarker)) | |
| Invited Experts with Member Access | |
| W3C Invited Experts | |
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | |
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | Question: does every member of the WG get a vote, even if there are a number of representatives from companies X, Y, and Z? should they not have to come to consensus on a vote amongst themselves before casting a formal vote? otherwise, this straw polling system could well prove unrepresentative, in that if vendors want to carry the day, they can flood the poll with bullet votes. |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | |
| Darren West (Darren West) | |
| Sam Sneddon | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no>. |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) |
More details on responses
- Google LLC: last responded on 27, April 2007 at 20:09 (UTC)
- Apple Inc.: last responded on 28, April 2007 at 00:39 (UTC)
- Nokia Corporation: last responded on 30, April 2007 at 07:32 (UTC)
- Disruptive Innovations: last responded on 30, April 2007 at 15:33 (UTC)
- Mozilla Foundation: last responded on 1, May 2007 at 22:01 (UTC)
- University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE: last responded on 1, May 2007 at 23:58 (UTC)
- Opera Software AS: last responded on 2, May 2007 at 13:15 (UTC)
- Vectoreal: last responded on 2, May 2007 at 22:05 (UTC)
- Oxford Brookes University: last responded on 3, May 2007 at 09:30 (UTC)
- IBM Corporation: last responded on 4, May 2007 at 00:09 (UTC)
- W3C/Keio: last responded on 4, May 2007 at 03:37 (UTC)
- Invited Experts with Member Access: last responded on 4, May 2007 at 22:46 (UTC)
- W3C Invited Experts: last responded on 5, May 2007 at 03:37 (UTC)
- Eric Daspet: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Daniel Schattenkirchner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Marcel Koeppen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dao Gottwald: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Charl van Niekerk: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David McClure: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Nicholas Branigan: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Alexey Proskuryakov: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- John S. Thomsen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Chasen Le Hara: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Olivier Gendrin: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- John-Mark Bell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Preston Bannister: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Matthew Freels: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Henrik Dvergsdal: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Nicolas Le Gall: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Brad Fults: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Shunsuke Kurumatani: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dominik Tomaszuk: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ben Ward: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Terry Morris: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arne Johannessen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Debi Orton: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arjan Eising: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sander van Lambalgen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Jonatan Lander: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Joseph D'Andrea: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Moto Ishizawa: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dannii Willis: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Stephen Duncan: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Doug Wright: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Maurice Carey: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dylan Smith: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Jesper Karsrud: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Stephen Stewart: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Michael Puls II: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Joshua Sled: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Jeff Schiller: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ryan Cook: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Andy Hume: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Patrick Taylor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Thomas Higginbotham: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- M. Jackson Wilkinson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Andrew Stibbard: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Magnus Kristiansen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Gregory Rosmaita: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arthur Jennings: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Lachlan Hunt: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Shawn Medero: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Gareth Hay: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Asbjørn Ulsberg: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Henrik Lied: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Darren West: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sam Sneddon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Laurens Holst: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Håsäther: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Carol King: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Terje Bless: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Cameron McCormack: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Jirka Kosek: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sierk Bornemann: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Simon Pieters: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Kornel Lesinski: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- James Graham: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ryan King: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Matthew Ratzloff: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Krijn Hoetmer: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dean Edridge: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sander Tekelenburg: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Roger Johansson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ben West: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Giovanni Gentili: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Matthew Raymond: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Dailey: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Guillaume Guérin: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Tim McMahon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Josef Spillner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Bhasker V Kode: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Nick Fitzsimons: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sean Fraser: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Masataka Yakura: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sandy Smith: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Andrew Sidwell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Bill Mason: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Isac Lagerblad: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dimitri Glazkov: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Savage: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Weston Ruter: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project