This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The status section of the HTML5 spec contains the following: The latest stable version of the editor's draft of this specification is always available on the W3C CVS server and in the WHATWG Subversion repository. The latest editor's working copy (which may contain unfinished text in the process of being prepared) contains the latest draft text of this specification (amongst others). For more details, please see the WHATWG FAQ. There are various ways to follow the change history for the HTML specifications: E-mail notifications of changes HTML-Diffs mailing list (diff-marked HTML versions for each change): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/latest Commit-Watchers mailing list (complete source diffs): http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/commit-watchers-whatwg.org Real-time notifications of changes: Generated diff-marked HTML versions for each change: http://twitter.com/HTML5 All (non-editorial) changes to the spec source: http://twitter.com/WHATWG Browsable version-control record of all changes: CVSWeb interface with side-by-side diffs: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/ Annotated summary with unified diffs: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker Raw Subversion interface: svn checkout http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps/ The W3C HTML Working Group is the W3C working group responsible for this specification's progress along the W3C Recommendation track. This specification is the 25 October 2010 Editor's Draft. Work on this specification is also done at the WHATWG. The W3C HTML working group actively pursues convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group charter. --- There is no need to continue referencing parallel organizations in the spec. This is a W3C document, not a WhatWG document. It should only reference W3C resources. To continue with the parallel references only serves to add confusion. In addition, the W3C has no control over the servers at the WhatWG--including their stability, and their content. Details: Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such differences generate confusion. Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have way for people to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec. Correct the reference labeled "CVSWeb interface with side-by-side diffs". It seems to be pointing to a directory, rather than a specific document with side by side differences. Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C. Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent, not useful for those accessing the W3C documents. Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have the "convergence" between the two groups embedded in a tech spec.
I object. Removing references to the WhatWG only serves political purposes, and amounts to belittling the reader.
(In reply to comment #1) > I object. Removing references to the WhatWG only serves political purposes, and > amounts to belittling the reader. So removing them serves political purposes, but adding them does not?
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I object. Removing references to the WhatWG only serves political purposes, and > > amounts to belittling the reader. > > So removing them serves political purposes, but adding them does not? Yes, I wondered at that. Politics aside, this is the W3C version of the document. By including parallel references, we're not only adding redundancy, and not particularly helpful redundancy, we're generating a level of confusion about where what is the definitive W3C material. And, the W3C has no control over what happens to the WhatWG servers. Or content. That's not necessarily a problem with a ack section link, but it is when you have references to material such as a FAQ, which supposedly is supposed to answer questions about the W3C document; or to source code control, which contains material that isn't the same as the W3C material.
(In reply to comment #0) > Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to > the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the > WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such > differences generate confusion. The W3C version only includes the final .html files, as far as I can tell, not the source file used to generate them. In the spirit of openness, it's better to provide pointers to all material used to create the spec, not just the final product. Also, one time I suggested a change (bug 10331) and Ian said he wasn't willing to do it, but was willing to accept a patch. Writing a patch that he can accept is only possible using the source file. > Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have way for people > to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not > identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate > confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec. On the other hand, the diffs of the source files are typically easier to read, since the scripts used to generate the final HTML pages add a bunch of noise. There are probably some examples where the source diffs are much easier to read, although I didn't look. > Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which > again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C. There is no W3C policy or guideline that I know of that suggests it's a bad idea to have informative content in drafts referencing sites outside of the W3C's control. This is not a reason by itself to remove anything. Of course, possibly-unstable links in the final Recommendation could be problematic, but we're nowhere near that point -- the link can just be removed from the next draft if it breaks. > Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent, > not useful for those accessing the W3C documents. As noted, this contains the source files, so it is pertinent. Plus, some people (like me) are familiar with Subversion but not CVS, so would prefer Subversion if given the choice. > Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is > a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have the "convergence" > between the two groups embedded in a tech spec. To the contrary, omitting mention of the WHATWG would be deceptive. The fact that HTML5 is the joint product of two different organizations is of considerable importance to anyone who wants to contribute to the spec. Changes to the spec do occur based on discussions in the WHATWG, and anyone who wants to keep on top of the spec should at least be aware of that fact, even if they don't actually want to subscribe to the whatwg list or join its IRC channel (which they might). The W3C's copy of HTML5 is independent and should not depend on or normatively reference the WHATWG version. However, to pretend that the WHATWG doesn't exist is a disservice to the readers of the W3C spec. While the existence of two spec versions undoubtedly creates confusion, that confusion will only be amplified if they don't acknowledge each other's existence -- given that they do both exist regardless of what the W3C version says.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to > > the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the > > WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such > > differences generate confusion. > > The W3C version only includes the final .html files, as far as I can tell, not > the source file used to generate them. In the spirit of openness, it's better > to provide pointers to all material used to create the spec, not just the final > product. Also, one time I suggested a change (bug 10331) and Ian said he > wasn't willing to do it, but was willing to accept a patch. Writing a patch > that he can accept is only possible using the source file. > A section in the HTML WG front page can link to additional sources, including the WhatWG material. It doesn't need to be in the HTML5 specification. Consider this: the people most likely to want the original source are people who already know where the original source material is. A lot of the people accessing HTML5 now, are new authors, web developers, and others, who, by accessing WhatWG material, which differs from the W3C material, are going to end up confused about what is, or is not, HTML5. > > Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have way for people > > to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not > > identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate > > confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec. > > On the other hand, the diffs of the source files are typically easier to read, > since the scripts used to generate the final HTML pages add a bunch of noise. > There are probably some examples where the source diffs are much easier to > read, although I didn't look. > The fact that the material is different must take precedence, has to take precedence over the appearance of the material. > > Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which > > again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C. > > There is no W3C policy or guideline that I know of that suggests it's a bad > idea to have informative content in drafts referencing sites outside of the > W3C's control. This is not a reason by itself to remove anything. Of course, > possibly-unstable links in the final Recommendation could be problematic, but > we're nowhere near that point -- the link can just be removed from the next > draft if it breaks. > And there's no W3C policy or guideline that recommends such an action, either. So this isn't a reason to keep the material. Now is the time when we need to seriously start cleaning up the spec. The group is attempting to get to Last Call. It can't afford to continue putting things off to "later". > > Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent, > > not useful for those accessing the W3C documents. > > As noted, this contains the source files, so it is pertinent. Plus, some > people (like me) are familiar with Subversion but not CVS, so would prefer > Subversion if given the choice. > Again, I find it likely you already know where the subversion source is, and the HTML WG can put the material in a "additional resources" section, or some such thing. > > Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is > > a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have the "convergence" > > between the two groups embedded in a tech spec. > > To the contrary, omitting mention of the WHATWG would be deceptive. The fact > that HTML5 is the joint product of two different organizations is of > considerable importance to anyone who wants to contribute to the spec. Changes > to the spec do occur based on discussions in the WHATWG, and anyone who wants > to keep on top of the spec should at least be aware of that fact, even if they > don't actually want to subscribe to the whatwg list or join its IRC channel > (which they might). Actually, the WhatWG no longer supports HTML5. As we've been told, WhatWG supports a HTML(n), where n is equal to infinity. And I'm not sure that there was ever a formal "joint" agreement. The membership said to use the WhatWG effort as a beginning baseline, WhatWG agreed, and at that point in time, also agreed to the W3C patent policy. Since that time, as we've been told several times, it doesn't matter what happens in WhatWG space, all that matters is what's in the W3C. > > The W3C's copy of HTML5 is independent and should not depend on or normatively > reference the WHATWG version. However, to pretend that the WHATWG doesn't > exist is a disservice to the readers of the W3C spec. While the existence of > two spec versions undoubtedly creates confusion, that confusion will only be > amplified if they don't acknowledge each other's existence -- given that they > do both exist regardless of what the W3C version says. I'm not saying to remove all references to WhatWG. I think a paragraph acknowledging how beholden the W3C is to the WhatWG could be placed in the ack section. We don't really need to have WhatWG sprinkled liberally throughout the spec, like chocolate chips in a cookie.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: our charter requires that we pursue convergence with the WHATWG, so admitting its existence in the status section seems like the least we could do.
(In reply to comment #6) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If > you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please > reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML > Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest > title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue > yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > > Status: Rejected > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: our charter requires that we pursue convergence with the WHATWG, so > admitting its existence in the status section seems like the least we could do. Convergence is not helped by maintaining separate and NOT equal versions of HTML5 at a web site that is basically a personal web site, run by a single individual, who has a demonstrated tendency to ignore more or less the will of everyone if he's in a mood. Most definitely am pushing this one through as a Tracker Request. Hopefully there will be _someone_ in the W3C cognizant of the problems that will arise by linking to a personal web site with material that conflicts with the W3C material. And that isn't stable.
Just as an example of unilateral changes being made in WhatWG without any regard to W3C effort, and how links in the W3C documents to WhatWG will cause confusion, as well as giving the WhatWG the credibility frankly it doesn't deserve. http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-December/029512.html The WhatWG is one person. One person.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/151
mass-move component to LC1