The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2007-04-27 to 2007-05-04.
102 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
The deliverables section of our charter calls for A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents and applications on the World Wide Web
. On 9 Apr 2007, Mozilla Foundation, Opera Software ASA, and Apple Inc., who claim copyright on HTML5 and WF2, offered a
Proposal to Adopt HTML5.
Shall we adopt these documents as our basis for review?
A "yes" response indicates a willingness to use these documents as the basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going forward. It does not constitute endorsement of the entire feature set specified in these documents, nor does it indicate that you feel that the documents in their present state should become a W3C Recommendation or even a W3C Working Draft.
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 88 |
| no | 4 |
| concur | 7 |
| abstain | 3 |
| Responder | Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | no | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no>. |
| Geoffrey Sneddon () | yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | The "HTML5" and "WF2" documents reflect years of working directly with web authors and implementors to carefully evolve HTML 4 into a language that better suits the challenges and desires of web authors today. This makes the work an ideal candidate for official specification and a starting point of value so great that ignoring it would be disastrous. |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | yes | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | I would like the position to be that we go through the features of WHAT WG's proposal individually. We should, however, use their work as a starting point for ours. |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | yes | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | The WHATWG specifications are well developed and adopting them as a starting point is our only real hope of meeting the deadlines in our current road map. |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson) | abstain | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | I see no reason to throw away all the work that has been done by the WHATWG, and then possibly end up with the same thing again. |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor) | yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | yes | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | It would be a waste of time to do otherwise. |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | concur | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | yes | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) | abstain | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | It is unreasonable not to adopt WA1 and WF2 as a basis of our new HTML. Set those two specs as a starting point, we could make the spec REC by the date what the charter sais. |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | There are no serious alternatives available and starting from scratch would be a waste of effort. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | Basing the spec on the WHATWG's would save considerable time and duplication of work (especially the interoperability testing and error handling), as well as providing new workable, documented features sourced from developers and implementers. |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | yes | I don't agree with everything in Web Apps 1.0 and haven't even reviewed all of it yet, but in essence it seems to be quite a good document and it would be insane (and perhaps even impolite) to ignore all that work and start from scratch. |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | yes | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | concur | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | yes | |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | i do not see how it should not help us . |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | HTML5 and WF2 represent years of work by an active community, and it would be wasteful to throw that away. Also, the community is backed by a good set of browser engine manufacturers, and it is important to keep them in the W3C WG. |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | The WHATWG HTML5 specification is significantly more representative of the current state of the web than the HTML4 specification. Therefore, it is clearly the most useful starting point for this working group. |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | I agree with others that given the amount of work that has already gone into Web Applications 1.0, it would be counterproductive not to start with it as the basis of review. It seems like there is more contention with Web Forms 2.0. On the other hand, Web Forms 2.0 is much more detailed than XForms Transitional. If I could split my vote on the two documents, I would vote "Yes" for Web Applications 1.0 and "Concur" for Web Forms 2.0. However, I am confident that the chairs can steer the work effectively regardless of the decision. |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | Years of excellent development should not be discarded. As the question rightly emphasises, this does not prevent further debate on Web Applications 1.0 and Web Forms 2.0 features by members who were not party to the WHATWG process, this is absolutely the right thing to do. |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | yes | Starting from scratch would be a waste of time. The work of WHATWG concerning HTML 5 should be a good start for W3C's HTML WG. |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | yes | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | It seems logical to re-use the work already done on better defining HTML4 features. Still need to review new elements/DOM. |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | concur | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | yes | WA2/HTML5 is represents several years of work of implementors and authors. Ignoring it would be a waste of our time. |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | yes | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | Provides a single focus for review. |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | abstain | As has been clarified, the adoption does not constitute an adoption of the content, merely that this is the point to go from, as a result, I change my vote to Blank |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | concur | Considerable work and testing went into the current WHAT WG's proposal. And it shouldn't be discarded. However, it is very browser-vendor oriented in origin, perspective, and principle, and goals. Their work could be a basis for discussion. But each individual feature of it would need to be examined and accepted/or rejected. Considerable work also went into HTML 4.01 Strict. WHAT WG's proposal seems to to ignore a lot of that and base much of its design on less rigorous specifications (HTML 4.01 Transitional, possibly even HTML 3.2). Adding presentational elements and attributes to HTML 5 would be a step backwards for authoring. HTML 5 should promote the modeling the logical structure and semantics of information, not its presentation. Presentation is the job of CSS. Deprecate (or obsolete) existing presentational markup while allowing it to gracefully degrade in user agents. When putting in any new 'features', do it in a way that older browsers and other user agents can still access basic content. |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | yes | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | yes | It's a large, well-researched body of work, but as noted, it should just be used as a starting point, and subject to change. I also feel strongly that any work on forms should be done specifically in the forms task force, and that it should be done in unison and in good faith with the XForms WG, with an eye towards an upgrade path to XForms. |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | no | Technical: The requirements that drove divergent technical approaches in XForms and WF2 must both be considered. For example, with "customer" implications, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0434.html Process: This is a process question, not a technical one, so here are my process reasons (text and url below): Regarding the Forms component of HTML 5, the HTML and Forms working groups are chartered to work together on forms that align with XForms. The purpose is to allow representation of HTML 5 forms by XForms constructs, which in turn gives an upward migration path for HTML 6 to adopt more features from XForms as their need becomes evident. The proposal should read "Shall we adopt HTML 5 and XForms as our specification text for review?" (since the HTML 5 proposal already contains the WF2 component). To adopt only HTML 5 and not XForms as "the" starting point immediately sets the wrong path for the working group, some of whose members seem completely bent around ignoring the charters and the prior W3C recommendation (XForms). We have to do something to get these folks turned around; indeed, one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how a particular simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather on having developed WF2. I look forward to the merge and to fulfilling our role in the W3C of producing its forms technology. For more details, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0392.html |
| University of Innsbruck (Alexander Graf) | yes | Basing the spec on HTML 5 by the WHATWG would not only save the W3C HTML 5 Working Group a considerable amount of time, it would also save us from having to go through the same amount of work for interop testing, error handling, documentation, etc. |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | yes | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | concur | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | no | |
| Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | yes | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | yes | A lot of work has already gone into HTML5, and, if not adopted, I believe we will simply waste time reinserting what has already been written. It's easier to "take away" than to "add to". |
| Nicolas LE GALL (Nicolas LE GALL) | yes | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | yes | As long as the document gets a proper review period when it is static and is not continuously changing |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | no | i concur with almost every point made by terje bless in the Formal Objection archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0583.html in addition, i am greatly disturbed by the implications of the question, in light of the copyright claims on HTML5 and WF2 by a number of developers. we are supposed to be evolving HTML4x into something better, not something proprietary, which can then be implemented unilaterally, thereby pushing the HTML WG in the direction of previous revisions to HTML prior to HTML4x -- the agenda of implementors drove the development of the language so that it is open to misuse, and then -- when corrections are suggested -- insist that it is imperative that a vendor-neutral standards setting body preserve and protect clearly underformed and malformed markup. |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | yes |
Shall we name the W3C's next-generation HTML specification "HTML 5"?
Note that this is subject to review by various other parties in the W3C process; see clarification 18 Apr from Connolly.
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 86 |
| no | 3 |
| concur | 9 |
| abstain | 4 |
| Responder | Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | yes | |
| Geoffrey Sneddon () | yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | For consistency's sake in both the implementation arena and (more importantly) the web author arena, the spec should reflect the evolution from its predecessor both in type and in name. |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | yes | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | I think this is obvious. However, I'm worried about the XHTML name. I don't think it would be fair to the XHTML WG to call ours XHTML 5. |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | concur | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | Any other title would be confusing, especially if we decide "yes" on the first question. |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson) | abstain | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | I think this is logical. |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor) | yes | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | Only if above question is approved by majority vote. |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | concur | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | It's the logical next step after "HTML 4". |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | yes | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | yes | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | yes | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) | abstain | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | It has been known as HTML5 for the past 3 years and there have been no sensible alternatives proposed, so yes. |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | To me, "HTML5" sounds an incremental change to the language and avoids coming across as a paradigm shift. That said, like Matthew Ratzloff I'm a little dubious of how the XHTML variant will be named. |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | abstain | I got the impression that some of WHATWG's WebApps 1.0 also specs non-HTML, like javascript. If non-HTML gets specced, then labelling that spec "HTML" could be misleading and might even have negative side effects that we cannot yet see coming. (I might have misunderstood this about Web Apps 1.0, but when I brought this up on the public-html list, nobody responded.) |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | yes | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | yes | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | yes | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | yes | |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | I don't have any name better than "HTML 5". |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | Although the specs include aspects other than what HTML currently has, HTML is still the core of it. Also, it is the most well-known acronym (maybe after WWW) in the web. |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | Seems quite sensible to me. |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | concur | Although I won't prefer HTML 5, because this new Markup language version would be closer to XML/XHTML than to SGML/HTML, I cast my vote to the majority. Suggestion: what about the name "XHTML 1.5"? |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | concur | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | What else? Seems logical |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | concur | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | yes | It's simple, straightforward and easy to remember. Also debating about names is usually a waste of time. |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | yes | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | I think it stands a better chance of wide adoption of it appears as a version update to the HTML spec. |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | abstain | I have no preference at this stage of the process, but would be happy to use html5 as a working title |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | yes | |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | yes | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | yes | The last version was HTML 4.01... maybe HTML 5.0 would be better, for when we come out with incremental updates. |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | concur | |
| University of Innsbruck (Alexander Graf) | yes | Anything else would be misleading. |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | concur | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | yes | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | yes | |
| Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | yes | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | yes | This just seems to be the logical thing to do. I don't believe that this spec will revolutionize HTML but instead improve on HTML 4.01. Therefore, it makes more sense just to increment the version number. |
| Nicolas LE GALL (Nicolas LE GALL) | yes | Simplier is better ! |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | no | I would prefer 5.01 |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | no | i would prefer if we develop Canonical HTML -- that is, the bedrock document upon which all dialects of XHTML and XML will hitherforth reference; therefore, i think we should drop the numbers (especially if this is to be the final iteration of HTML); why not just call it what it is: HTML -- more specifically, Canonical HTML |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | no | It should be (x)html5 |
Shall the editors of HTML5 be Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt?.
See also Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt of 20 Apr 2007.
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 78 |
| no | 1 |
| concur | 15 |
| abstain | 7 |
(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)
| Responder | HTML5 Specification Editors | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | yes | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | yes | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | yes | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no> and following messages; in particular the reservations on which horse to put at what side of whose cart. |
| Geoffrey Sneddon () | yes | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | yes | Ian Hickson has been the sole editor of the specs up for review and has proved to be an extremely valuable asset to the community as a whole when turning its desires into features and sensible spec text. Dave Hyatt's experience with multiple browser vendors and multiple W3C working groups also places him well to be co-editor of this specification. |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | abstain | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | yes | Yes; provided they understand that the role of editor does not have any kind of final decision-making power, but is primarily that of an aggregator. I believe that's understood. |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | yes | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | yes | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | yes | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | yes | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | yes | Both are well qualified as editors, and I'm not aware of anyone else receiving and accepting a nomination, so an objection is a call for extending the deadline for nomination. (Adequate time for nomination has passed, in my opinion.) Also, since Ian will be keeping the WHATWG spec a strict superset of W3C HTML, having a different W3C editor would simply duplicate effort. |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | yes | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | yes | |
| Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson) | abstain | Assuming the three votes carry, I would be happy to volunteer as editor. I would also be happy to work with David Hyatt. |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | yes | Definitely Ian. Hyatt probably is a good choice too. |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | yes | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | yes | |
| Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor) | yes | Would prefer just Hixie, but this appears to be the next best thing. |
| James Graham (James Graham) | yes | |
| Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson) | yes | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | yes | |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | concur | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | yes | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | concur | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | yes | |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | yes | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | yes | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | yes | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | yes | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | yes | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | concur | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | yes | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | yes | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | concur | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | yes | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | yes | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) | abstain | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | yes | Wonders who'll be the authors. But yes, I don't disagree with this choice. |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | yes | I think it is good to have more than one editor, and think Dave Hyatt is a good choice next to Ian Hickson. |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | yes | |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | yes | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | yes | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | yes | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | yes | Ian Hickson has demonstrated excellent editing and technical research abilities with the WHATWG and is employed by a non-vendor. I'm less familiar with Dave Hyatt, apart from his technical expertise (which I gleaned from bugzilla.mozilla.org and the Safari blog over the years). |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | yes | This is a conditional yes. The only problem I have is that what Dave says through email is so often so very unclear, due to his bad quoting style (typically quoting entire messages, preceding them with a single sentence). IMO everybody, but *especially* editors and chairs should do their very best to leave as little room for misunderstanding as possible. We already have a chair who is often very unclear. I hope Dave will do much better in his role as editor. |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | yes | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | yes | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | concur | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | yes | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | yes | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | concur | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | abstain | Yes to the question : "shall Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt be editors of HTML5 ?". We could need more/other editors, and the question seems closed. |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | yes | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | yes | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | yes | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | yes | They are competent to do the job, and have worked on the WhatWG specs, thus know them beforehand. Also, they have agreed to invest large amounts of their time in editing the spec(s). |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | yes | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | yes | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | yes | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | yes | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | yes | Given that it is likely that Web Applications 1.0 will be taken as the basis of work, and that Ian has the best knowledge of the document, it makes sense to have him as an editor. I agree with those who've said that it would be better not to have the sole responsibility lie with a single person. |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | yes | I hold high respect for both men in their past contributions to standards and web technology development, I have absolute faith that their viewpoints are in line with the best interests of the internet and their corporate affiliations and histories apply a balance to those of the co-chairs. |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | yes | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | yes | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | yes | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | concur | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | yes | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | yes | |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | yes | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | yes | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | yes | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | yes | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | concur | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | yes | |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | ||
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | yes | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | yes | I've read many of both gentlemen's posts and have read posts by both in other forums. They both seem to have an expert-level understanding of the issues involved and appear willing to work together cooperatively. |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | concur | If the two nominees are happy to do the job. |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | yes | |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | concur | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | abstain | I'm abstaining even though I have serious reservations. Hickson and Hyatt are both excellent choices for editor, but I am concerned that they may not represent a wide enough diversity of opinion. Statements that they don't intend to attempt to get consensus (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070501#l-34) disturb me. As previously noted by another voter, the option of adding an additional editor is not considered here. My rationale for abstaining is that I don't want to hold up the process, but I would prefer more serious treatment of this issue. |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | concur | The question is poorly worded as it leads one to believe that *the* editors are being chosen, but DanC comments here (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0424.html) that the link above is a normative part of the question, and it allows for other editors. Based on that, changed to concur. My original objection: To properly fulfill the requirement of working together on a joint task force for forms, it is imperative that a Forms WG member be included as an editor. |
| University of Innsbruck (Alexander Graf) | abstain | I'm abstaining. The current choices are both excellent but, as another voter put it, I too am somewhat concerned that they do not represent a wide enough diversity of opinion. I wouldn't want to hold up the working group but I'd prefer one more editor. |
| Darren West (Darren West) | concur | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | yes | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | concur | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | no | |
| Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad) | yes | |
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | concur | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | yes | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | concur | I'm not real familiar with the work or ethics of Ian or Dave so I will concur with the majority and assume they know what's best. |
| Nicolas LE GALL (Nicolas LE GALL) | yes | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | yes | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | yes | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | yes | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | yes | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | yes | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | yes | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | abstain | i am abstaining from this vote until Questions 1 and 2 are decided. |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | yes | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) | yes |
Consensus is a core value of W3C. Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. A "no" vote in this survey is a formal objection. An individual who registers a Formal Objection should cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection.
Please put your arguments (or a pointer to your arguments) in the rationale field.
For each question:
We'll take a week to allow WG participants to respond to this questionnaires and then the chairs will announce the result.
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) | |
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | |
| Terje Bless (Terje Bless) | See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no>. |
| Geoffrey Sneddon () | |
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | |
| Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) | |
| Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) | |
| Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) | |
| David McClure (David McClure) | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | |
| Carol King (Carol King) | |
| Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond) | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | |
| Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart) | |
| Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson) | |
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | |
| Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters) | |
| Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin) | |
| Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor) | |
| James Graham (James Graham) | |
| Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson) | |
| Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili) | |
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | |
| Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook) | |
| Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey) | |
| Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) | |
| Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen) | |
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | |
| Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan) | |
| Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan) | |
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | |
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | |
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | |
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | |
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | |
| Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea) | |
| Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov) | |
| W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) | |
| Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) | |
| Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst) | |
| Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) | |
| Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer) | |
| Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander) | |
| Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) | |
| Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard) | |
| Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) | |
| Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister) | |
| Ben West (Ben West) | |
| Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) | |
| Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) | |
| Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald) | |
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | |
| Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) | |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | |
| Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode) | |
| Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala) | |
| Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner) | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | |
| Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied) | |
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | |
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | |
| Ben Ward (Ben Ward) | |
| Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann) | |
| Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud) | |
| Andy Hume (Andy Hume) | |
| Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) | |
| Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk) | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | |
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | |
| Terry Morris (Terry Morris) | |
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | |
| Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons) | |
| Ryan King (Ryan King) | |
| Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara) | |
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | |
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | |
| Debi Orton (Debi Orton) | |
| Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay) | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | |
| M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) | |
| Vectoreal (Doug Schepers) | |
| IBM Corporation (John Boyer) | Generally, this decision is being made too soon and in a vacuum of leadership from the chairs. The chairs are not required to take a proposal to vote if it countermands the charters of working groups. Those who made the proposal can then formally object, and I suppose the director can then explain why the objections are overruled or he can amend the charters. Should the latter occur, I would say it seems a shame to cut and run from the carefully thought out strategy without giving any real effort at compromise and working together. I think that not enough thought is going into the fact that although we now have 400 invited experts, we still have responsibilities to a very much greater number (in the billions now) to get this right. |
| University of Innsbruck (Alexander Graf) | |
| Darren West (Darren West) | |
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | |
| Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal) | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | |
| Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad) | |
| Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) | |
| David Savage (David Savage) | |
| Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham) | |
| Nicolas LE GALL (Nicolas LE GALL) | |
| Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood) | |
| Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels) | |
| Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa) | |
| Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad) | |
| Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen) | |
| John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen) | |
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | Question: does every member of the WG get a vote, even if there are a number of representatives from companies X, Y, and Z? should they not have to come to consensus on a vote amongst themselves before casting a formal vote? otherwise, this straw polling system could well prove unrepresentative, in that if vendors want to carry the day, they can flood the poll with bullet votes. |
| Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor) | |
| Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge) |
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire