Presentation: The Fight Over HTML5

March 2nd, 2011 by Mike Wilcox

The Fight Over HTML5 I’ve posted my latest presentation that deals with the skirmish between the WHATWG and the W3C: which standards body should we listen to?

See the presentation here.

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “Presentation: The Fight Over HTML5”

  1. karl says:

    The slides could be improved by mentioning a few things more.

    slide 19 – W3C didn’t pay for the logo work.
    slide 21 – The WHATWG announces that they rename their document as HTML Living Standard. The snapshot which is published on W3C Web site under *patent policy* will be html5
    slide 39 – The W3C has always said it was out for community review.
    slide 56 – Things are cut from specs when there are not at least a double implementations of each features (Candidate Recommendation). It is the *normal* process. Nothing new. No aggressive timeline.
    slide 69 – W3C here is W3C members. It illustrates a disagreement in between W3C members.
    slide 82 – Microsoft is not joining the WHATWG because of the lack of patent policy. Nokia is not there, Access (NetFront) is not there, etc.
    slide 93 – What are secret rules? The W3C Process is public, most of the WGs have their work in public. Specs are published in public.
    slide 94 – Many working groups are open to public participation without fees. Example: HTMLWG.
    slide 95 – False. There is a majority of Not For Profit and Affiliate companies.
    slide 96 – False. By W3C Process, every member has one voice. W3C is a community of members. The listen is a bit strange.
    slide
    slide 98 – W3C members decided to move away from HTML brokeness and tried to move a cleaner markup leveraging on XML. We know it didn’t work and retrospectively it was a mistake.
    slide 99 – False. The W3C moved from RAND (like IETF for example) to RF (Royalty Free) to give a safer environment for developers.
    slide 102 – W3C said: “Be careful if you use the technology in production. There is no full interoperability yet”.
    slide 107 – WHATWG people are exactly the same people that are working inside W3C Membership. Part of the work btw is done by the W3C webapps WG by the exact same people.
    slide 125 – is spot on! ;) unfortunately.

    btw: this seems to not work http://www.slideshare.net/anm8tr/the-fight-over-html5

  2. Mike Wilcox says:

    Hi Karl. I only have responses for a few things.

    slide 82 – Microsoft is not joining the WHATWG because of the lack of patent policy. Nokia is not there, Access (NetFront) is not there, etc.

    Based on some of the things I’d seen MS people say before they got on board with HTML5… I think I’ll stick to my opinion. As for this being the official reason though – it certainly works.

    slide 93 – What are secret rules? The W3C Process is public, most of the WGs have their work in public. Specs are published in public.

    Secret rules to decide membership. I may have been more clear in my commentary.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Membership

    slide 94 – Many working groups are open to public participation without fees. Example: HTMLWG.

    That’s actually very good to know.

    slide 95 – False. There is a majority of Not For Profit and Affiliate companies.
    slide 96 – False. By W3C Process, every member has one voice. W3C is a community of members. The listen is a bit strange.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted the large company *influence* that I read about in the above link. I’m glad things work better than are reported.

    slide 99 – False. The W3C moved from RAND (like IETF for example) to RF (Royalty Free) to give a safer environment for developers.

    I can’t find my original link where I got this information (shame on me). However, I don’t recall it being as informative as your statement here, so I will take yours as fact.

    slide 102 – W3C said: “Be careful if you use the technology in production. There is no full interoperability yet”.

    Granted, and thanks for the official word. But this was certainly a case where no statement was better than any statement. This is akin to saying “Careful when you drive – not all roads are the same.” Sorry for the sarcasm, but the point of my close to the presentation is that we have been dealing with the lack of interoperability since the dawn of the web. Nothing has changed in the way we handle new features.

    slide 107 – WHATWG people are exactly the same people that are working inside W3C Membership. Part of the work btw is done by the W3C webapps WG by the exact same people.

    That interesting, but certainly not the public perception. Note that in the upcoming video with my commentary I play down the WHATWG a little more (life would go on if the went away).

    slide 125 – is spot on! ;) unfortunately.

    Unfortunately!? :) I’ve got other blogs that address my opinion here, and I know many of my peers hate buzz words like Web 2.0 – but these buzz words mean excitement to the people who hold the purse strings. When they are excited they want things built, and they want them built with the new, shiny toys. I understand and even prefer the “living standard” from a developer perspective, but as my own salesman, I like the buzz words that drive business.

    Thanks for the clarifications Karl!