Introduction

Current state: HTML is being developed outside of the W3C by a number of browser implementers, excluding Microsoft. The prevalent feeling amongst those that do so is that if the W3C doesn’t adopt their spec, the W3C will look dull.

Desired state: Many groups representing many different disciplines and constituencies contributing to HTML. Documents with the requisite amount of consensus are adopted by the W3C independent of their source.

Getting from here to there will be confusing. Those with a vested interest will portray portions of the truth in a way that will sound very plausible. This is an attempt to level set.

A Few Select Quotes

Epigraph The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It is vital that a vibrant and open web exists based on HTTP and HTML. That’s not meant to be an exclusive statement: coexistence with proprietary RIAs may also be something some of us are OK with; it is the converse that we are concerned with here: a stagnant or closed HTML is simply not acceptable.

Acknowledgement So this is very much an “outsider’s” history, and like any history, it is necessarily biased, selective, and incomplete. The following is a brief history, mostly chronological, focusing mostly on the past five years, a period during which most of the HTML5 effort has occurred. I was not involved in most of this, but much (not all) of the discussion has been publicly archived.

Conclusion

Gatekeepers are anathema to an open web, even if those gatekeepers currently have goals that largely align with ours and may be of short term pragmatic usefulness.

Without a clear and documented path for extensibility, XHTML2, ARIA, Creative Commons, Facebook, Palm, Microsoft, DOJO, XForms, and the WHATWG are all pulling in different directions. We should also endeavor to get the XHTML2 and HTML Working Groups brought together, or at least have the overlaps removed.

Within the working group there certainly is more than adequate representation for the perspective of web crawlers and browser implementors. It is less obvious that we have adequate representation from content creators. Perhaps some sort of outreach by the W3C is appropriate here?

Google’s role is not free from the perception of conflict of interest, and that coupled with Ian’s endorsed role as a dictator will affect the credibility of the outcome produced. In particular, it will give Microsoft all of the excuse it needs to avoid implementing the standards. (Not that eliminating that excuse will magically cause Microsoft to participate…)

It is equally true that Ian is talented, dedicated, and driven. The work that he is doing is necessary, and simply could not be done without him. If there is something that needs doing, he will take it on, no matter how big the challenge. There also is some evidence that he will let go of things once he is convinced that somebody capable of taking the task on is going to see it through to completion.

No concrete action is asked for today, again, this is just a level set. Blocking Last Call until consensus is reached and supporting the publishing alternative documents as Working Drafts will be important down the line. Note: it is not important which spec “wins”, just that there is enough competition to keep everybody honest.

ARIA is an exemplar.