Subject: Re: HTML5 work and review

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:31:40 -0700

I haven't seen an answer to this.  Can the W3C limit the scope of the  
HTML5 WG such that it does not include new protocol design?

Thanks,
Lisa

On Aug 8, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> During one of our calls, I asked about the HTML5 scope of work, and  
> was encouraged to post directly to the HTML5 WG.  I haven't done so  
> in part because the document is so large I haven't been able to  
> review it all.  Because of this, I'm asking other IETF people, more  
> expert than me in their areas, to review parts of the document.   
> I've got Ted Hardie and Leslie Daigle reviewing the use of URLs  
> generally and John Klensin is preparing some high-level comments on  
> IRIs.
>
> The protocol defined as a side effect of the Web Socket API is  
> another kind of issue entirely, however.  A detailed review would be  
> the wrong level to look at right now.  The basic approach is going  
> to give problems: it's been my personal experience, and the personal  
> experience of many others at the IETF (really a matter of common  
> knowledge) that a protocol designed to fall out of an API design is  
> going to be brittle, hard to extend, and hard to implement outside  
> of the environments of the designers.  That's why we focus on  
> specifying the bits on the wire at the IETF.
>
> Furthermore:
> - We can't effectively review the protocol as part of the giant  
> HTML5 document
> - The HTML5 WG is not attracting the kind of participants that could  
> do protocol design well and with extensibility, commsec and other  
> protocol design experience
> - The need for a new protocol is not well motivated, and certainly  
> it's not a crucial part of HTML5
> - Designing a variant of HTTP, for use by clients and servers that  
> already support "real" HTTP, has many bad side effects
>
> In short, this is such a high-level problem that I don't know how to  
> address it to the WG participants directly.  Can the W3C deal with  
> this particular part of HTML5 as a matter of limiting scope of the WG?
>
> Lisa

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:54:19 -0500

> HTML5 WG such that it does not include new protocol design?

I got into the negotiation around the scope of the HTML5 WG
pretty late, so I'm not exactly sure where this came from,
but it's in the charter, and the cost of changing the charter
is very, very high:

"Networking APIs for server-push, asynchronous two-way client-server
communication, peer-to-peer communication, and client-side cross-domain
communication."
  -- http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html

I'm very sympathetic to your concerns about the logistics
of the "giant HTML5 document" and such; it would help if
I can quote you in public. May I?

p.s. I can't find the 8 Aug message; I have pretty complete
logs, and I don't see any trace of it, even in my spam defenses.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:25:51 -0700

>  -- http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html

First interpretation:  The WG will define APIs for existing protocols  
(and will find existing protocols that do two-way asynch, P2P and  
cross-domain comm).
Second interpretation: The WG will define APIs and will define, from  
first principles, if necessary, protocols that meet the requirements  
of those APIs .
Third interpretation: The WG will define APIs which will, as a side  
effect, define new protocols.

I am sure in hindsight that the intent of that charter was to define a  
new protocol, but for somebody reviewing the charter without the  
benefit of the work already done, it's not clear.  It may be useless  
word-lawyering, but it wouldn't require a charter change for the WG to  
live by the first interpretation.  Even the second would be better  
than the third.

Is the real very high cost in getting the document to change, if the  
charter doesn't have to?

> I can quote you in public. May I?

Yes

> logs, and I don't see any trace of it, even in my spam defenses.

That would explain a lack of response!  I found it in my Sent folder  
but who knows.

Lisa

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:52:15 -0500

> live by the first interpretation.  Even the second would be better

Right... the WG doesn't _have_ to use all the rope given
in the charter...

> Is the real very high cost in getting the document to change, if the

Unfortunately, I don't have a very effective working relationship
with the editor.

I'll see what I can do. Wish me luck. If you know anybody
who is interested to edit part of the HTML 5 specs, please
let me know.

I'm reasonably confident that the document won't advance
beyond Working Draft status while it includes Web Sockets,
but it could be years before push comes to shove and
the less mature parts actually get cut out.

> > I can quote you in public. May I?

Thanks.

[...]

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:35:25 +1000

Speaking just as me...

> Unfortunately, I don't have a very effective working relationship

I don't find that surprising, but I do find it interesting.

> the less mature parts actually get cut out.

Unfortunately, some of the participants in HTML5 have the ear of  
browser vendors, and are aggressively pushing the WGs products into  
software. Even if these things never make their way into committee  
standards, they'll be de facto ones.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:53:54 -0400

--On Tuesday, 16 September, 2008 06:35 +1000 Mark Nottingham
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, some of the participants in HTML5 have the ear
> of browser vendors, and are aggressively pushing the WGs
> products into software. Even if these things never make their
> way into committee standards, they'll be de facto ones.

Unfortunately, if that happens and some of the network providers
and others who are not browser vendors perceive themselves as
having been hurt by it, the range of sources of support for W3C
tend to get narrower.  That doesn't help anyone, making this a
classic "rock and hard place" problem.

   john

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:19:48 -0500

[...]
> software.

If you have any specifics to share about that sort of thing, I'd
like to know. I'm still learning how influence spreads.

I have seen plenty of cases where the implementors were building
something and they used the HTML 5 draft as a negotiating forum,
but I don't know of any cases of it going the other way... i.e.
cases where the feature was dreamed up in the HTML 5 spec and
somebody convinced the browser vendors to support it.

>  Even if these things never make their way into committee

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:55:43 +1000

> somebody convinced the browser vendors to support it.

That may be true as well, but regardless I get the sense that a few  
strong personalities have a lot of sway over both a few key browser  
vendors as well as the WG. Those same people have repeatedly stated  
their disdain for consensus, the W3C process, the IETF, IANA, HTTP,  
and the Web in general. What's happening might make browsers work  
better (or not), but as John points out, other parties -- whether it  
be network operators or non-browser consumers of HTML -- are likely to  
be disadvantaged.