intertwingly

No work stopped.

At no time did the current, up to the minute, versions — complete with occasional typos and botched commits — of the editor’s drafts become unavailable: HTML5, RDFa, MicroData, 2D Context, Markup, Diffs.

The absolute most that anybody, anywhere, ever proposed was that these very same documents be published with different labels: either as result of being moved to a different working group, or with different disclaimers in the status section.  Neither request is without precedent.

This has lead to a Wonderland debate about what HTML is.  From my perspective, that’s about as productive as trying to argue about whether or not jQuery.getJSON is, or is not, AJAX.  Of the six documents to be published this go around, three are not published by the WHATWG.  The documents published by the WHATWG span multiple working groups and even standards organizations.  In fact, the draft, revised charter for the WebApps Working Group is looking to acknowledge the splitting of documents and changing of ownership explicitly:

Specifically, because of the close relationship of the WebApps WG and the HTML WG in terms of participants, market, and community, the WebApps WG may opt to take on a limited number of specifications which were initially part of the HTML5 specification that have been split off for more general use with other languages, without rechartering the group, and only by consensus of both groups.

With that out of the way, what I want to talk about is openness.

Private mailing lists at the W3C are like steak knives at restaurants.  These mailing lists serve a purpose.  And should they ever be used for a different purpose, it is that usage that needs to be addressed, not the mechanism itself.

A few things worth pointing out:

• The W3C does not permit non-public Formal Objections.
• If anything vaguely resembling a objection of any kind is made that affects the content of documents that the Working Group is producing or the publication thereof, the chairs of the HTML working group will ask that it be published on public-html.
• Such requests will get the support of the Interaction Domain Leader who oversees W3C HTML Activities.
• The chairs will ask that extended discussions about scope not be held on public-html.
• The W3C will not hold the publication of the documents if the procedural concerns are not resolved.

This is because, when all is said and done, there is absolutely no reason that heartbeat requirements should ever get in the way of getting work done.

That being said, the co-chairs felt it prudent to hold off for a few days before sending the request to publish.

Update: Chair's Decision, Director's Decision