HTML 5 LCWD
By glazou on Tuesday 24 May 2011, 17:51 - Standards - Permalink
I am hesitating between hilarity and shock. IMHO, W3C's HTML WG died today. Again.
Next events
- 9-11 may-2012, CSS WG meeting, Hamburg, Germany
- 29 oct-2 nov 2012, W3C Technical Plenary Meeting, Lyon, France
Comments
I read and understood your arguments for most of your votes, but all these documents are approved by a large majority, so I don't understand why WG would die?
Idem. I don't understand what is shocking.
Morever, i don't understand the difficulties meet by this group over the years.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Care to explain?
Daniel, surely you're being melodramatic for effect. The HTML WG overwhelmingly supported moving these specs to last call. It wasn't just a majority, it was a huge majority.
@Asa: because wide support is a proof of quality ? This is not perfectionnism here. The spec does not meet the basic quality level of ALL other specs in the W3C. It's amazing something so badly polished can be proposed for LCWD, a status usually implying good stability, good quality and overall confidence that it move go as is or with minor changes to CR. a LCWD also implies that the dependencies with other WGs are met ; here they are NOT met, and not at all. To that degree, that's probably a first in the Interaction domain of the W3C. Even the XHTML2 WG was communicating better with the other Groups.
In short, the LCWD is only published to meet the announced deadlines. Netscape did "The code is ready", the HTML WG did "The spec is ready". Similar situation.
I really like this as an excuse for voting yes ('HTML5 Last Call Working Draft'):
'But only because we are agreed to indicate that there is likely to be yet another "last call," in other
words, this isn't really anything close to "last," because it isn't near finished, at least with respect to accessibility.'
Not only do words like 'likely' leave it open if there ever is another last call, but the whole reasoning begs to ask the question "Why vote in the first place???"
Hmm. I like Julian Reschke's response:
"The referenced spec is changing while the poll is running. There's no sane way to review it."
A poll on a moving target. I don't think this has been thought through at all really, has it?