w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2008-01-09 to 2008-01-16.
88 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Publication decision process
- Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?
- Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well?
1. Publication decision process
Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. In this survey, you may indicate disagreement without formally objecting. 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. Should the question carry, any formal objections will be cited from the status section of the publication.
As publication is necessary for progress of the group and this is a non-technical question, we will decide it by counting votes. A quorum is 50 working group participants, including half the 28 participating W3C member organizations. Provided we have a quorum and at least 2/3rds of the non-blank votes are 'yes', the question carries.
If you're not familiar with the process of Working Draft publication, see the list of W3C working drafts, section 7.4.1 First Public Working Draft of the Process document, and the heartbeat requirement.
This survey is subject to change for the first day or so, i.e. until the end of the 10 January teleconference. Any comments on this decision process should go in the comment field below.
Details
| Responder | |
|---|---|
| Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann) | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | |
| David Andersson (David Andersson) | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | |
| Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor) | |
| Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer) | |
| Danny Liang (Danny Liang) | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | |
| Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois) | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | |
| Simon Myers (Simon Myers) | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | |
| Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski) | |
| Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle) | |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | |
| Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka) | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | |
| Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall) | |
| Sam Sneddon | I find it unlikely that any unanimous decision will ever be made within a WG of this size, and I find it likely that there will always be Formal Objections to any request to move a document to TR space. |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | |
| Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm) | |
| Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis) | |
| Doug Jones (Doug Jones) | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | |
| James Cassell (James Cassell) | |
| Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement) | |
| Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch) | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | |
| Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey) | |
| Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm) | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | |
| Adam Nash (Adam Nash) | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | |
| Jason White (Jason White) | |
| Ben Millard (Ben Millard) | |
| Robert Burns (Robert Burns) | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | |
| Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann) | |
| Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies) | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | |
| John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo) | |
| Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos) | |
| Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner) | |
| Orange (Stéphane Deschamps) | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith) | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | |
| AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver) | |
| ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik) | |
| Apple Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak) | |
| Cisco (Michael Whitley) | |
| BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard) | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | |
| Mozilla Foundation (David Baron) | |
| Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh) | |
| mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart) | |
| Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley) | |
| Opera Software AS (Anne van Kesteren) | I thought there was agreement already... |
| Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi) | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | |
| Library of Congress (Justin Thorp) | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | |
| Boeing Company (Scott Vesey) | |
| Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier) | |
| Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley) | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | |
| Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR) | |
| Joshue O'Connor (Joshue O'Connor) | |
| IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger) | In the next release I want to see full ARIA support. |
| International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio) | |
| Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke) | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | |
| Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette) | |
| Stanford University (Monika Trebo) | |
| Microsoft Corporation (Chris Wilson) |
2. Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?
Shall we release HTML 5 as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, the co-chairs (Dan Connolly and Chris Wilson) will choose between v1.344 (Thu Dec 20 21:42:20 2007 UTC) and any later revisions from the editors this week.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Abstain | 7 |
| Yes | 78 |
| No | 1 |
| Formally Object | 2 |
Details
| Responder | Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann) | Yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | Yes | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | Yes | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | Yes | |
| David Andersson (David Andersson) | Yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | Yes | Release early and often. More critical and potentially useful feedback is out there. |
| Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor) | Yes | |
| Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer) | Yes | |
| Danny Liang (Danny Liang) | Yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | Yes | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | Yes | |
| Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois) | Yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | Yes | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | Yes | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | Yes | |
| Simon Myers (Simon Myers) | Yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | Yes | The publication should include a note reminding W3C process, a link to the design principles, and an explicit call to comments... |
| Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski) | Yes | |
| Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle) | Yes | It's vitally important we establish a heartbeat for the spec. I acknowledge there are unresolved issues. I think it is even useful to publish those issues and (hopefully) receive wider feedback (conversely a lack of feedback itself will be a telling thing). |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | Yes | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | Yes | |
| Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka) | Yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | Yes | There is little purpose in delay, since most of the contents have been available and debated for month and this is intended to be a first working draft, not a last call. |
| Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall) | Yes | |
| Sam Sneddon | Yes | Yes, for what progress can we make if we cannot publish a WD until every last issue is addressed? Nobody has infinite time. |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | Yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | Yes | |
| Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm) | Yes | |
| Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis) | Yes | |
| Doug Jones (Doug Jones) | Yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | Yes | The name of the specification may indeed perpetuate misconception that HTML 5 is not compatible with XHTML. Given that, comments on the initial draft may focus on pointless discussions on superiority of XHTML rather than draft's merits. However this isn't a critical issue and shouldn't be keeping WG from going forward. |
| James Cassell (James Cassell) | Yes | |
| Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement) | Yes | |
| Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch) | Yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | Yes | |
| Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey) | Yes | |
| Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm) | Yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | Yes | |
| Adam Nash (Adam Nash) | Yes | It sure is a working draft. |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | Yes | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | Yes | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | Yes | As a working draft it's naturally to contain issues (major and minor ones). The advantages of a "working draft" are clear and there's no reason not to release the draft as such. |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | Yes | We're already beyond the requirements and getting more input from outside the WG can only help. |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | Yes | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | Yes | |
| Jason White (Jason White) | Abstain | The Status section of the current editors' draft does not clarify sufficiently that publication as a W3C Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C, its members, or participants in the working group of the contents of the specification. It should also be clarified that any aspect of the specification may be revised, so that potential implementors do not (drawing on the current wording regarding maturity) make assumptions concerning which aspects of the document are mature and hence open to implementation, in a way that could later be taken as grounds for not changing those parts of the specification which have been subject to early implementation. With suitable disclaimers in place in the Status section, I would support publication, as this is a formal heartbeat requirement, not an endorsement of the specification by the working group, and it would be beneficial for a working draft to be circulated publicly for wider review and comment. |
| Ben Millard (Ben Millard) | Yes | * To fulfil the heartbeat requirement. * To make HTMLWG's progress more public. * The increased publicity may bring in more volunteers to do research and other work. |
| Robert Burns (Robert Burns) | Formally Object | The process has not moved forward according to W3 procedures: especially in the spirit of consensus building. Complaints in these questionnaire responses that claim no hope of consensus could ever be established reflect the sentiments of those from a single block of the group that believes it can simply push through its agenda regardless of the spirit of W3 process and without trying to build consensus. A W3 recommendation created under such circumstances will not become an effective standard. Rather than decreasing the number of votes needed for an action to pass the working group, we should focus on building consensus and balancing the different interests involved. |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | Yes | |
| Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann) | Yes | |
| Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies) | Yes | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | Yes | |
| John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo) | Yes | |
| Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos) | Yes | The main reason to say yes is that releasing the working draft will help getting more input from outside the WG. Although I've some notes: I think now it's Adobe's Flash instead of Macromedia's Flash (in section "1.1. Scope"). How is this specification related with other devices? I think it would be appropriate to define other relations in the section "1.1. Scope" (e.g. "1.1.4. Relationship to XHTML Mobile Profile (XHTML-MP)"). I don't agree with the section "1.4.1. HTML vs XHTML" where the use of XHTML5 is discouraged since it has numerous advantages. How does HTML5/XHTML5 handle new features available since XHTML 1.1 like XHTML Modularization? |
| Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner) | Yes | Although I share concerns about the working group leadership, processes and some of the content within the current draft, I do not see that attempting to block the working draft publication as a worthwhile course of action at this time. |
| Orange (Stéphane Deschamps) | Yes | I have noted that this in no way means that consensus *has* been definitely achieved, re: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith) | Yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | Yes | |
| AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver) | Yes | |
| ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik) | Yes | |
| Apple Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak) | Yes | See previous survey on this topic. This survey should be unnecessary - the last survey was pretty clear. |
| Cisco (Michael Whitley) | Yes | |
| BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard) | Yes | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | Yes | My main reason for voting Yes on the 12 January 2008 document is to make sure that there is a stable Draft of this document that remains current for a significant period of time and allows mature comment to be made on it before the next Working Draft is released. I think the current document does not make clear the relationship between XHTML 1.0, HTML 4.01, XHTML 5, HTML 5 and XHTML 2. I think this needs to be made clear by W3C when this Draft is issued and make it clear that there is currently no agreement on any of the propsed changes. In Europe, governments, companies and institutions have made significant investments in XHTML 1.1 which should be protected and their path forward made clear. |
| Mozilla Foundation (David Baron) | Yes | |
| Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh) | Yes | |
| mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart) | Yes | |
| Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley) | Yes | |
| Opera Software AS (Anne van Kesteren) | Yes | |
| Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi) | Yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | Formally Object | The (X)HTML5 specification should not be published. This group is being led by the WHATWG and due to my ideas/contributions clashing with those of the WHATWGs my input has been deliberately ignored. I have repeatedly raised my concerns on the public-html list and privately with the chairs and editor but they have only ever denied such problems with HTML WG's process. The naming of the specification as "HTML 5" is totally inappropriate and needs to be changed to "HTML5 and XHTML5". As it stands XHTML5 will never be an official W3C recommendation but HTML5 will be. This is not acceptable as the specification is equally HTML and XHTML. Just a few sentences mentioning XHTML5 in the spec is not sufficient to ensure the adoption/support for the XHTML5 language. No versions of the spec should be published until these problems have been addressed and the appropriate changes are made to the draft. |
| Library of Congress (Justin Thorp) | Yes | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | Yes | |
| Boeing Company (Scott Vesey) | Yes | |
| Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier) | Abstain | I do not believe HTML5 should be published as a working draft until more of the inconsistencies are worked out. |
| Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley) | Yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | Yes | The First Public Working Draft is, according to the W3C Process Document, a “signal to the community to begin reviewing the document.” It is explicitly called out to be “unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.” The Process Document and Patent Policy further details how to handle Patent Disclosure and similar issues at any point up to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation. Thus the two issues which to my mind might argue against the speedy publication of FPWD — possible patent implications of not including a Theora requirement for video, and any technical or principled reservations about the content of the current Editor's Draft — are *not* relevant to the question of whether to publish a FPWD now. Specifically addressing my concerns, the Process and Patent Policy guarantee that publication of FPWD without a Theora requirement for video can not be an argument against adding such a requirement in a further Working Draft (or other deliverable). Further, any technical change to the specification — however fundamental — should not be hindered by the mere fact of the current specification's publication as FPWD. After some considerable deliberation of these points, I would therefore vote in favour of publication of FPWD. |
| Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR) | No | I support Laura Carlson's position, but my reservations both about process and content are so great that I feel that a simple abstention is insufficient. Therefore, I vote "No". I find the current draft extremely unsatisfactory, not only in terms of its provenance (it is basically a WHATWG paper, with some minor input from this group) but also in terms of its conflation of issues. I would like to see separate specifications for (a) syntax and semantics, (b) parsing and error recovery, and (c) rendering. |
| Joshue O'Connor (Joshue O'Connor) | Yes | Warts and all. |
| IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger) | Yes | It is time for a public W3C version which we can reference. |
| International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio) | Abstain | |
| Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke) | Abstain | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | Yes | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | Yes | Although I disagree with many aspects of HTML5 there should be stable WD so all interested parties can review it and comment on it. |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | Abstain | Although the process has not embraced consensus building and I do not agree with some of the content in the current draft, attempting to block publication is not a productive action at this time. Public review and comment from outside the Working Group are vitally needed and should be vigorously sought, especially in regard to accessibility features being dropped or changed. Like others have mentioned suitable disclaimers are required stipulating that publication: 1. DOES NOT constitute endorsement of the entire specified feature set. 2. DOES NOT indicate that the working group feels that the document in its present state should become a W3C Recommendation. In addition it should also be prominently noted that the decision to publish: 3. WAS NOT reached by consensus, a core value of the W3C. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus |
| Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette) | Abstain | I did not have the time to review the document in a satisfactory manner |
| Stanford University (Monika Trebo) | Abstain | I wish to see clearly stated that: - nothing in this draft is carved in stone but every aspect is subject to further discussion and revision - the publication of the document as a first working draft does *not* mean that consensus within the group has been reached [http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus] - that the WG invites all interested parties to review and comment - I agree with Laura Carlson that “Public review and comment from outside the Working Group are vitally needed and should be vigorously sought, especially in regard to accessibility features being dropped or changed.“ |
| Microsoft Corporation (Chris Wilson) | Yes | Microsoft strongly supports the effort within W3C to develop HTML5 and we plan to continue to be deeply involved in this work. While we support the release of a working draft of HTML5 at this time, we note that the current draft covers a number of deliverables that are outside the scope of the current HTML WG charter and thus raises issues as to their status under various W3C rules. Following the W3C process is critically important to the healthy operation of the organization and to fulfilling the expectations of the participants in this effort and in others. We therefore ask that the W3C address the scope issues as soon as possible (by amending the charter and/or moving deliverables to other groups) so that the HTML5 work can continue without any ambiguity or question as to scope. |
3. Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well?
Provided the question above carries, Shall we release HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, revision 1.33 of 2007-10-22 11:17:20 plus any publication-related changes (e.g. status section, typos, broken links) agreed by the editor (Anne van Kesteren) and one of Dan Connolly, Chris Wilson, or Mike Smith.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Abstain | 6 |
| Yes | 74 |
| No | 7 |
| Formally Object | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann) | Yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | Yes | |
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | Yes | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | Yes | |
| David Andersson (David Andersson) | Yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | Yes | |
| Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor) | Yes | |
| Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer) | Yes | |
| Danny Liang (Danny Liang) | Yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | Yes | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | Yes | |
| Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois) | Yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | Yes | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | Yes | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | Yes | |
| Simon Myers (Simon Myers) | Yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | Yes | |
| Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski) | Yes | |
| Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle) | Yes | Yes, I think these two documents should always be published in tandem. The differences doc must be accurately reflect the diffs between HTML4 and HTML5... there is no point having this document if it does not keep pace with the HTML5 spec. It is a very useful index/introduction to HTML5 for people familiar with HTML4. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | Yes | |
| Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) | Yes | |
| Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka) | Yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | Yes | The utility of the document is sufficient to justify publication. |
| Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall) | Yes | |
| Sam Sneddon | Yes | While I believe this document has one or two issues (that have already been brought up on public-html), I strongly believe with a spec of the size of HTML 5 that publishing a list of differences from the last major version is important (I also believe that this should be an informative appendix to the spec, but I digress from this survey). |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | Yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | Yes | |
| Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm) | Yes | |
| Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis) | Yes | |
| Doug Jones (Doug Jones) | Yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | No | List of absent attributes still lacks clear rationale for their omission. Readers unfamiliar with the subject may jump to wrong conclusions, especially about attributes related to accessibility. |
| James Cassell (James Cassell) | Yes | |
| Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement) | Yes | |
| Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch) | Yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | Yes | |
| Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey) | Yes | |
| Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm) | Yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | Yes | |
| Adam Nash (Adam Nash) | Yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | Yes | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | Yes | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | Yes | If the HTML 5 working draft is "v1.344 (Thu Dec 20 21:42:20 2007 UTC) and any later revisions from the editors this week.", the "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" document needs to be updated before it can be published. The former had some major changes since the differences document was written. |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | Yes | This will help communicate to the larger community what exactly HTML5 is. |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | Yes | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | Yes | |
| Jason White (Jason White) | Abstain | The same reasons hold as in question 2 above. |
| Ben Millard (Ben Millard) | Yes | It helps to focus review on the drafted changes from what standards-aware authors are used to. |
| Robert Burns (Robert Burns) | No | While this document should be released along side the HTML working draft, neither is ready in terms of W3 process. |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | Yes | |
| Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann) | Yes | |
| Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies) | Yes | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | Yes | |
| John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo) | Yes | I'm beginning to think that for authors, this document is probably informally more important that the HTML5 spec. More people know (sort of) HTML 4 than know how to read a long spec. |
| Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos) | Yes | This document is indeed a critical one, it's very important to have more examples mainly in the section "3.2. New Elements". |
| Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner) | Yes | see rationale for Q2 above. |
| Orange (Stéphane Deschamps) | Yes | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith) | Yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | Yes | |
| AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver) | Yes | |
| ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik) | Yes | |
| Apple Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak) | Yes | |
| Cisco (Michael Whitley) | Yes | |
| BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard) | Yes | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | Abstain | A factual Note which just lists the differences between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 would be of value. The current document is a mixture of such a Note with subjective views concerning motivation etc. The whole of Section 1 could be deleted, most of Section 2 also. Section 3 should just point out the PPROPOSED changes with references to where the descriptions can be found. |
| Mozilla Foundation (David Baron) | Yes | |
| Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh) | Yes | |
| mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart) | Yes | |
| Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley) | Yes | |
| Opera Software AS (Anne van Kesteren) | Yes | |
| Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi) | Yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | Formally Object | Referring to a complete specification as "HTML5" when people associate HTML5 and HTML with text/html will always cause confusion. 1) "Defines a single language called HTML 5 which can be written in a "custom" HTML syntax and in XML syntax." I think that's very misleading. And in fact incorrect. HTML5 cannot be written in an XML syntax (at the moment). It can only be written in a text/html syntax. Also this document never mentions XHTML5 even though the author mentions an XML syntax. I think this document just makes things more confusing and is additional proof that the specification (X)HTML5 needs to renamed with an explicit mention of XHTML5. 2) "For the XML syntax authors have to use..." Why not tell them that it is called XHTML5? 3) Why not explain the differences between XHTML1 and XHTML5? Given the specification defines HTML5 and XHTML5 equally; I'm surprised that it seems so important to have a document describing the differences between a set of old and a new text/html languages (HTML & HTML5). I believe that this document should be reworded to indicate that HTML5 refers to text/html and XHTML5 refers to application/xhtml+xml or application/xml. |
| Library of Congress (Justin Thorp) | Yes | But... I think there should be an alternate version of this doc published that's not in the TR format. Most (outside the W3C community and a lot within it) don't find the TR format very palatable and this is a doc that we actually want to get folks to read. |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | Yes | |
| Boeing Company (Scott Vesey) | Yes | |
| Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier) | No | The full differences between HTML4 and HTML5 are not yet ready, in my personal opinion. Such a document should wait until HTML5 is in its later stages. |
| Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley) | Yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | Yes | I consider substantial documentation of the differences from the previous Recommendation(s) a critical success factor for this WG. While I may have reservations about the format (TR, Note, Appendix, etc.) and other such factors, none of these are prevented from being corrected in the future by publication as a Working Draft. I therefore vote in favour of publication of the differences document as a WD. |
| Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR) | No | Here I support the positions taken by Robert Burns and Bob Hopgood. And since I have voted "No" to releasing the spec., it would seem nonsensical to vote otherwise for releasing the differences. |
| Joshue O'Connor (Joshue O'Connor) | Yes | |
| IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger) | Yes | This is necessary for comparison. |
| International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio) | Abstain | |
| Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke) | Abstain | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | No | that's a STRONG no -- i think the WG needs to take a closer "look" at the differences document before it is issued -- will the difference document be updated as the HTML5 WG is updated? how will the process of updating be handled -- by hand or automated? does anne, given all of his other commitments, need more editorial assistance? furthermore, since the HTML5 working draft is being released with reservations on the part of a not insignificant portion of the HTML WG, it would make more sense to achieve more stability with the HTML5 working draft, before comparing it to HTML4 |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | Abstain | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | No | I agree with Kornel Lesinski and Gregory Rosmaita's rationale. |
| Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette) | Abstain | I did not have the time to review the document in a satisfactory manner |
| Stanford University (Monika Trebo) | No | Documentation of the differences from the last major version is of great value to both WG members and authors, - helping reviewers focus on what has changed and - helping introduce authors who don’t want to read the whole specification to HTML5, but: - rationale needs to be provided for attribute list (especially 3.6 Absent Attributes). - examples or links to examples in the specification should be provided (esp. 3.2 New Elements) - the differences document needs to be in sync with the specification. If it does not keep pace, it will cause confusion. |
| Microsoft Corporation (Chris Wilson) | Yes |
More details on responses
- Marco Neumann: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:01 (UTC)
- James Graham: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:05 (UTC)
- Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:06 (UTC)
- David Håsäther: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:10 (UTC)
- David Andersson: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:15 (UTC)
- Brad Fults: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:25 (UTC)
- Philip Taylor: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 19:41 (UTC)
- Thomas Broyer: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 21:01 (UTC)
- Danny Liang: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 21:30 (UTC)
- Michael Puls II: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 21:30 (UTC)
- Arthur Jennings: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 22:28 (UTC)
- Mark DuBois: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 22:34 (UTC)
- Ben West: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 22:39 (UTC)
- Cameron McCormack: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 23:09 (UTC)
- Shawn Medero: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 23:23 (UTC)
- Simon Myers: last responded on 9, January 2008 at 23:26 (UTC)
- Olivier Gendrin: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 09:31 (UTC)
- Marek Pawlowski: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 10:41 (UTC)
- Ben Boyle: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 11:14 (UTC)
- Krijn Hoetmer: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 11:19 (UTC)
- Nicolas Le Gall: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 11:45 (UTC)
- Jürgen Jeka: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 13:04 (UTC)
- Matthew Raymond: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 15:00 (UTC)
- Robert Marshall: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 17:01 (UTC)
- Sam Sneddon: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 17:26 (UTC)
- Dimitri Glazkov: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 19:05 (UTC)
- Bill Mason: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 19:24 (UTC)
- Stephen Axthelm: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 21:26 (UTC)
- Scott Lewis: last responded on 10, January 2008 at 23:29 (UTC)
- Doug Jones: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 01:20 (UTC)
- Kornel Lesinski: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 01:29 (UTC)
- James Cassell: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 02:14 (UTC)
- Michaeljohn Clement: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 08:42 (UTC)
- Wesley Upchurch: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 14:17 (UTC)
- Terry Morris: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 14:42 (UTC)
- Matthew Turvey: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 19:08 (UTC)
- Marc Drumm: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:02 (UTC)
- Sander van Lambalgen: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:46 (UTC)
- Adam Nash: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:48 (UTC)
- Maurice Carey: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:48 (UTC)
- Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:53 (UTC)
- Daniel Schattenkirchner: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:59 (UTC)
- Ryan King: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 21:59 (UTC)
- Sean Fraser: last responded on 11, January 2008 at 23:21 (UTC)
- Carol King: last responded on 12, January 2008 at 04:40 (UTC)
- Jason White: last responded on 12, January 2008 at 05:47 (UTC)
- Ben Millard: last responded on 12, January 2008 at 17:46 (UTC)
- Robert Burns: last responded on 12, January 2008 at 18:22 (UTC)
- John-Mark Bell: last responded on 13, January 2008 at 03:41 (UTC)
- Jens Bannmann: last responded on 13, January 2008 at 08:32 (UTC)
- Patrick Garies: last responded on 13, January 2008 at 09:32 (UTC)
- Andrew Sidwell: last responded on 13, January 2008 at 10:16 (UTC)
- John Vernaleo: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 01:17 (UTC)
- Samuel Santos: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 01:43 (UTC)
- Steve Faulkner: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 09:30 (UTC)
- Orange: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:22 (UTC)
- W3C/Keio: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:22 (UTC)
- Nokia Corporation: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- AOL LLC: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Apple Inc.: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Cisco: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- BEA Systems, Inc.: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Oxford Brookes University: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Mozilla Foundation: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Betfair Limited: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- mTLD Top Level Domain Limited: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Queensland University of Technology: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Opera Software AS: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 15:53 (UTC)
- Dean Edridge: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 16:43 (UTC)
- Library of Congress: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 18:46 (UTC)
- Arne Johannessen: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 18:57 (UTC)
- Boeing Company: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 19:56 (UTC)
- Navarr Barnier: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 21:30 (UTC)
- Thomas Bradley: last responded on 14, January 2008 at 22:21 (UTC)
- Terje Bless: last responded on 15, January 2008 at 07:42 (UTC)
- Philip TAYLOR: last responded on 15, January 2008 at 15:24 (UTC)
- Joshue O'Connor: last responded on 15, January 2008 at 15:47 (UTC)
- IBM Corporation: last responded on 15, January 2008 at 17:09 (UTC)
- International Webmasters Association (IWA): last responded on 16, January 2008 at 09:00 (UTC)
- Julian Reschke: last responded on 16, January 2008 at 09:32 (UTC)
- Gregory Rosmaita: last responded on 16, January 2008 at 18:17 (UTC)
- Jirka Kosek: last responded on 16, January 2008 at 19:24 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 16, January 2008 at 20:33 (UTC)
- Benoit Piette: last responded on 17, January 2008 at 00:09 (UTC)
- Stanford University: last responded on 17, January 2008 at 02:55 (UTC)
- Microsoft Corporation: last responded on 17, January 2008 at 03:47 (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