PUBLIC MARKS from night.kame with tag "WHAT Task Force"

The truth is it has always been this way with the WHATWG. As Shelly, John and others elsewhere have pointed out, this has happened a bunch of times before. This is par for the course. It’s not a “WHATWG” issue so much as it is an “Ian Hickson” issue. Ian has done a lot of (commendable) hard work getting the HTML spec into better shape over the years, but the fact of the matter is he makes very strange decisions too. He’s not there because he builds websites, or because he has a good relationship with the community, or that he follows his own processes (ha!), or he’s good at taking a consensus view, or anything like that. He’s there because the W3C failed so badly with HTML (see: XHTML 2.0), and Hickson editing the spec worked for vendors. Not you.

La WHAT Task Force n'a jamais été faite pour le Web, c'est juste une coalition des anti-Internet Explorer.

The HTML spec has jurisdiction only because people choose to apply it to their documents. If people choose to apply some other specification instead, or in combination, the HTML spec can't stop them. If an entirely separate group completely redefines what “HTML” means and publishes that as a rival spec, what matters is not what either spec says is permissible to do with the term “HTML”, but which spec users of HTML choose to follow.

Traduction : les gens font ce qu'ils veulent, donc les standards sont inutiles, donc le WHAT WG est inutile.

Low on hype, high on practicality — that’s why I admire the WHATWG.

Gruber aime construire l'avenir sur des sables mouvants. La WHAT Task Force mérite vraiment notre admiration.

Pour rappel, WebSocket est un nouveau protocole, standardisé par IETF et inclus dans HTML5.

Sauf que la version WebSockets de l'IETF n'est pas exactement la même que celle de HTML5. D'ailleurs quel HTML5 ? Celui du W3C ou celui de la WHAT Task Force ?

I think the HTML4 model was just a spec bug resulting from the use

of DTDs to express the restrictions of the language.

Toujours quelque chose à dire, même quand on ne sait pas de quoi on parle : c'est à ça qu'on reconnaît les membres du WHAT WG.

this note is against the IETF common practice, so we invite Ian to

remove it.

Ian Hickson : l'Anelka de la spécification.

Ian's arguments are entirely based on browser behavior, when it

suits him, and entirely based on speculation when it doesn't.

We have had several discussions on terminology and language

definition for which he has shown no interest in consistency.

We have argued about URI and URL algorithms for which his claim

of browser implementation has turned out to be utterly false.

We are still arguing about the definition of Content-Language

as a pragma in HTML5, even though that definition is technically

wrong, not implemented by the majority of browsers let alone

any of the thousand or so content management systems, actively

harmful to deployed content, disagrees with the normative

MIME and HTTP definitions, breaks the principle of orthogonality

that is core to Web architecture, and even manages to misuse

the term "pragma" for something that is very clearly metadata.

Euh... dtg ?

If HTML isn’t “standardized”, as Geschke claims, then what are these specifications from open standards organizations?

Vous ne rêvez pas, Gruber nous gratifie d'un lien vers le WHAT WG en décrivant comme une "open standards organization" ; et pourquoi pas une "open standards open organization" tant qu'on y est ?

So I’ve tended to be plain accepting that HTML 5 will be whatever it is, and if its bad its bad because of Hickson and a certain crowd. I have no power to affect the obsessive thoughts of certain individuals one way or the other. I’m also probably representative of quite a large group of the silent disenchanted who will continue to code in HTML 4 or XHTML 1 well into the future and fight on building websites in whatever tag soup monstrosity we are burdened with on the day.

HTML 5 est "community driven", ce qui concrètement signifie que seuls ceux qui ont la capacité de travailler à plein temps dessus ont une petite chance de faire entendre une voix différente de la WTF. Mais de toute façon, vu comme c'est parti, HTML 5 finira en browser-sniffing (ou "feature detection" comme on dit aujourd'hui), ce qui en fait déjà un échec immense.

The W3C does not, and never will, publish real standards because it is not a standards organization: It's a CONSORTIUM (you know, that "C" in W3C is there for a reason - look it up!). Standards and Standards Bodies must be endorsed by governments and legally enforceable. W3C recommendations are simply "recommendations". There is no legal consequence to not following or fully conforming to a "recommendation"...

C'est étrange cette manie des participants à la WTF à mélanger tout et n'importe au nom du pragmatisme (plus loin dans son commentaire, Marcos Caceres explique en quoi un "vrai standard" n'est pas pragmatique pour le web). Pour rappel, selon lui l'ISO ne produit pas de standards, pas plus que l'IETF, etc... Sur sa page publique, il indique "I work as a software architect/standards engineer for Opera Software." Selon sa définition, Opera ne supporte aucun standard, donc il est au mieux architecte logiciel. Et en même temps, c'est un hsivoniste, donc il reconnaît qu'il n'y a que les développeurs de moteurs CSS qui savent gérer les mutations d'une structure en arbre, ceux travaillant sur le DOM n'en ayant pas les compétences. Marcos Caceres ne travaillant pas sur le moteur CSS chez Opera, on en déduit qu'il ne sait pas très bien manipuler les structures arborescentes. Donc en fait, selon lui, il est au mieux développeur junior chez Opera.

The spec uses "XHTML5" and so does Validator.nu. The term is pretty widely used on the Web.

Occurences du mot XHTML5 dans Google en prenant soin d'enlever les protagonistes du WhatWG, les aggrégateurs de contenu et les archivages des listes de discussions ? 3000. La bonne parole du WhatWG, ça ferait presque regretter les témoins de Jéhovah.