W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2007-04-27 to 2007-05-04.

104 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?
  2. Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?
  3. HTML5 Specification Editors
  4. Decision process

1. Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?

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.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes 88
no 4
concur 7
abstain 3

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our specification text for review?Rationale
Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>) abstain
Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson <adele@apple.com>) yes
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>) 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.
Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>) yes
Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>) yes
University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf <alexander.graf@sti2.at>) 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.
Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>) yes
Vectoreal (Doug Schepers <schepers@vectoreal.com>) 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.
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>) yes As long as the document gets a proper review period when it is static and is not continuously changing
IBM Corporation (John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>) 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
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>) abstain
W3C Invited Experts
Invited Experts without Member Access
Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet <eric.daspet@survol.fr>) yes
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>) yes
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>) yes
Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen <public-html@lists.marzelpan.de>) yes
Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>) yes
Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk <charlvn@charlvn.com>) yes
David McClure (David McClure <mcclure@purdue.edu>) yes
Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan <applelists@gmail.com>) concur
Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>) yes
John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen <john.s.thomsen@gmail.com>) yes
Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>) yes
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>) yes
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>) 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.
Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister <preston@bannister.us>) yes
Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels <freels@gmail.com>) yes
Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal <henrikdv@gmail.com>) concur
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>) yes
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>) 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.
Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani <kurumatani.shunsuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>) yes
Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk <deres@o2.pl>) no
Ben Ward (Ben Ward <webstandards@ben-ward.co.uk>) 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.
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>) concur
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>) yes
Debi Orton (Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>) yes Provides a single focus for review.
Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising <arjan@arjaneising.nl>) yes
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>) yes
Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander <jonatan@jonatan.com>) yes
Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea <jdandrea@gmail.com>) yes
Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa <summerwind.jp+w3c@gmail.com>) yes
Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis <curiousdannii@gmail.com>) yes
Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan <stephen.duncan@gmail.com>) yes
Doug Wright (Doug Wright <douglas.wright@pre-school.org.uk>) yes
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>) yes
Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>) yes
Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud <jesper.karsrud@gmail.com>) yes
Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>) yes
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>) yes
Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>) yes
Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>) yes
Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook <quamtar@gmail.com>) yes
Andy Hume (Andy Hume <andyhume@thedredge.org>) yes
Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>) yes
Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham <thomas@thomashigginbotham.com>) 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".
M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson <jackw-w3c@jounce.net>) yes
Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard <xhva_htmlwg@netspace.net.au>) 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.
Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen <magnusrk+w3c@pvv.org>) yes
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>) 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.
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>) yes
Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>) yes There are no serious alternatives available and starting from scratch would be a waste of effort.
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>) yes
Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>) 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
Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>) yes
Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied <henriklied@gmail.com>) yes
Darren West (Darren West <darren.west@gmail.com>) concur
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) yes
Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam@grauw.nl>) yes
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>) 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.
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>) yes
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>) no See <http://www.w3.org/mid/r02020000-207-1049-ppc-6890FF0CF7664B11B84B91151203EBC7@pounder.neutri.no>.
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>) 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.
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>) concur
Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmail.com>) 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.
Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>) yes
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>) yes
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>) yes
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>) yes WA2/HTML5 is represents several years of work of implementors and authors. Ignoring it would be a waste of our time.
Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>) 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.
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>) yes
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>) yes
Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>) 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.
Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>) yes
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>) yes
Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili <giovanni.gentili@gmail.com>) yes
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>) 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.
David Dailey (David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>) concur
Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin <dev.deeder@gmail.com>) yes
Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon <tmcmahon@elevenlimited.com>) yes
Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner <spillner@rn.inf.tu-dresden.de>) yes
Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode <bhaskervk@gmail.com>) yes i do not see how it should not help us .
Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons <w3@nickfitz.co.uk>) yes
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>) yes
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>) yes
Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura <masataka.yakura@gmail.com>) 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.
Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith <ssmith@forumone.com>) yes
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takkaria.org>) yes It would be a waste of time to do otherwise.
Bill Mason (Bill Mason <billm@accessibleinter.net>) yes
Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad <icaaaq@gmail.com>) yes
Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>) yes It seems logical to re-use the work already done on better defining HTML4 features. Still need to review new elements/DOM.
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>) 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.
David Savage (David Savage <david.a.savage+w3c@gmail.com>) yes
Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter <westonruter@gmail.com>) yes

2. Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?

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.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes 86
no 3
concur 9
abstain 4

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?RationaleComments
Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>) abstain
Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson <adele@apple.com>) yes
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>) 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.
Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>) yes
Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>) yes
University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf <alexander.graf@sti2.at>) yes Anything else would be misleading.
Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>) yes
Vectoreal (Doug Schepers <schepers@vectoreal.com>) yes The last version was HTML 4.01... maybe HTML 5.0 would be better, for when we come out with incremental updates.
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>) no I would prefer 5.01
IBM Corporation (John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>) concur
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>) abstain
W3C Invited Experts
Invited Experts without Member Access
Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet <eric.daspet@survol.fr>) yes
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>) concur
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>) yes
Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen <public-html@lists.marzelpan.de>) yes
Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>) yes
Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk <charlvn@charlvn.com>) yes
David McClure (David McClure <mcclure@purdue.edu>) yes
Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan <applelists@gmail.com>) yes
Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>) yes
John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen <john.s.thomsen@gmail.com>) yes
Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>) yes
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>) yes
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>) yes
Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister <preston@bannister.us>) yes
Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels <freels@gmail.com>) yes
Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal <henrikdv@gmail.com>) yes
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>) yes Simplier is better !
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>) 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.
Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani <kurumatani.shunsuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>) yes I don't have any name better than "HTML 5".
Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk <deres@o2.pl>) yes
Ben Ward (Ben Ward <webstandards@ben-ward.co.uk>) yes
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>) concur
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>) yes
Debi Orton (Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>) yes I think it stands a better chance of wide adoption of it appears as a version update to the HTML spec.
Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising <arjan@arjaneising.nl>) yes
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>) yes
Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander <jonatan@jonatan.com>) yes
Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea <jdandrea@gmail.com>) yes
Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa <summerwind.jp+w3c@gmail.com>) yes
Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis <curiousdannii@gmail.com>) yes
Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan <stephen.duncan@gmail.com>) yes
Doug Wright (Doug Wright <douglas.wright@pre-school.org.uk>) yes
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>) concur
Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>) yes
Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud <jesper.karsrud@gmail.com>) yes
Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>) yes
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>) yes
Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>) yes
Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>) yes
Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook <quamtar@gmail.com>) yes
Andy Hume (Andy Hume <andyhume@thedredge.org>) yes
Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>) yes
Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham <thomas@thomashigginbotham.com>) 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.
M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson <jackw-w3c@jounce.net>) yes
Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard <xhva_htmlwg@netspace.net.au>) 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.
Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen <magnusrk+w3c@pvv.org>) yes
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>) 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
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>) yes
Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>) yes It has been known as HTML5 for the past 3 years and there have been no sensible alternatives proposed, so yes.
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>) yes
Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>) abstain I have no preference at this stage of the process, but would be happy to use html5 as a working title
Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>) yes
Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied <henriklied@gmail.com>) yes
Darren West (Darren West <darren.west@gmail.com>) concur
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) yes
Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam@grauw.nl>) yes
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>) yes I think this is logical.
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>) yes
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>) yes
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>) yes Seems quite sensible to me.
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>) yes
Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmail.com>) 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"?
Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>) yes
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>) yes
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>) yes
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>) yes It's simple, straightforward and easy to remember. Also debating about names is usually a waste of time.
Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>) 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.
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>) yes
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>) no It should be (x)html5
Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>) 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.)
Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>) yes
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>) yes
Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili <giovanni.gentili@gmail.com>) yes
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>) yes Any other title would be confusing, especially if we decide "yes" on the first question.
David Dailey (David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>) concur Only if above question is approved by majority vote.
Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin <dev.deeder@gmail.com>) yes
Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon <tmcmahon@elevenlimited.com>) yes
Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner <spillner@rn.inf.tu-dresden.de>) yes
Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode <bhaskervk@gmail.com>) yes
Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons <w3@nickfitz.co.uk>) yes
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>) concur
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>) yes
Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura <masataka.yakura@gmail.com>) yes
Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith <ssmith@forumone.com>) concur
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takkaria.org>) yes It's the logical next step after "HTML 4".
Bill Mason (Bill Mason <billm@accessibleinter.net>) yes
Isac Lagerblad (Isac Lagerblad <icaaaq@gmail.com>) yes
Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>) yes What else? Seems logical
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>) yes
David Savage (David Savage <david.a.savage+w3c@gmail.com>) yes
Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter <westonruter@gmail.com>) yes

3. HTML5 Specification Editors

Shall the editors of HTML5 be Ian Hickson and Dave Hyatt?.

See also Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt of 20 Apr 2007.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
yes 78
no 1
concur 15
abstain 7

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder HTML5 Specification EditorsRationaleComments
Google, Inc. (Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>) abstain Assuming the three votes carry, I would be happy to volunteer as editor. I would also be happy to work with David Hyatt.
Apple, Inc. (Adele Peterson <adele@apple.com>) yes
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>) 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).
Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>) yes
Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>) yes
University of Innsbruck DUPLICATE (Alexander Graf <alexander.graf@sti2.at>) 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.
Opera Software (Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>) yes
Vectoreal (Doug Schepers <schepers@vectoreal.com>) 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.
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>) yes
IBM Corporation (John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>) 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.
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>) abstain
W3C Invited Experts
Invited Experts without Member Access
Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet <eric.daspet@survol.fr>) concur
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>) yes
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>) yes Would prefer just Hixie, but this appears to be the next best thing.
Marcel Koeppen (Marcel Koeppen <public-html@lists.marzelpan.de>) yes
Dao Gottwald (Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>) yes
Charl van Niekerk (Charl van Niekerk <charlvn@charlvn.com>) yes
David McClure (David McClure <mcclure@purdue.edu>) yes
Nicholas Branigan (Nicholas Branigan <applelists@gmail.com>) yes
Alexey Proskuryakov (Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>) yes
John S. Thomsen (John S. Thomsen <john.s.thomsen@gmail.com>) yes
Chasen Le Hara (Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>) yes
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>) 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.
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>) yes
Preston Bannister (Preston Bannister <preston@bannister.us>) yes
Matthew Freels (Matthew Freels <freels@gmail.com>) yes
Henrik Dvergsdal (Henrik Dvergsdal <henrikdv@gmail.com>) concur
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>) yes
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>) 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.
Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani <kurumatani.shunsuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>) yes
Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk <deres@o2.pl>) no
Ben Ward (Ben Ward <webstandards@ben-ward.co.uk>) 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.
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>) yes
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>) yes
Debi Orton (Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>) 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.
Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising <arjan@arjaneising.nl>)
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>) yes
Jonatan Lander (Jonatan Lander <jonatan@jonatan.com>) yes
Joseph D'Andrea (Joseph D'Andrea <jdandrea@gmail.com>) yes
Moto Ishizawa (Moto Ishizawa <summerwind.jp+w3c@gmail.com>) yes
Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis <curiousdannii@gmail.com>) concur
Stephen Duncan (Stephen Duncan <stephen.duncan@gmail.com>) yes
Doug Wright (Doug Wright <douglas.wright@pre-school.org.uk>) yes
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>) concur
Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>) yes
Jesper Karsrud (Jesper Karsrud <jesper.karsrud@gmail.com>) yes
Stephen Stewart (Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>) yes
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>) yes
Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>) yes
Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>) yes
Ryan Cook (Ryan Cook <quamtar@gmail.com>) yes
Andy Hume (Andy Hume <andyhume@thedredge.org>) yes
Patrick Taylor (Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>) yes
Thomas Higginbotham (Thomas Higginbotham <thomas@thomashigginbotham.com>) 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.
M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson <jackw-w3c@jounce.net>) concur
Andrew Stibbard (Andrew Stibbard <xhva_htmlwg@netspace.net.au>) 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).
Magnus Kristiansen (Magnus Kristiansen <magnusrk+w3c@pvv.org>) yes
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>) abstain i am abstaining from this vote until Questions 1 and 2 are decided.
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>) yes
Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>) yes
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>) yes
Gareth Hay (Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>) concur If the two nominees are happy to do the job.
Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>) yes
Henrik Lied (Henrik Lied <henriklied@gmail.com>) yes
Darren West (Darren West <darren.west@gmail.com>) concur
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) yes
Laurens Holst (Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam@grauw.nl>) yes I think it is good to have more than one editor, and think Dave Hyatt is a good choice next to Ian Hickson.
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>) yes Definitely Ian. Hyatt probably is a good choice too.
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>) yes
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>) 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.
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>) 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.
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>) yes
Sierk Bornemann (Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmail.com>) yes
Simon Pieters (Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>) yes
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>) concur
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>) yes
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>) concur
Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>) 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.
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>) yes
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>) yes
Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>) 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.
Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>) abstain
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>) yes
Giovanni Gentili (Giovanni Gentili <giovanni.gentili@gmail.com>) yes
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>) 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.
David Dailey (David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>) concur
Guillaume Guérin (Guillaume Guérin <dev.deeder@gmail.com>) yes
Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon <tmcmahon@elevenlimited.com>) concur
Josef Spillner (Josef Spillner <spillner@rn.inf.tu-dresden.de>) yes
Bhasker V Kode (Bhasker V Kode <bhaskervk@gmail.com>) yes
Nick Fitzsimons (Nick Fitzsimons <w3@nickfitz.co.uk>) yes
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>) yes
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>) yes
Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura <masataka.yakura@gmail.com>) yes Wonders who'll be the authors. But yes, I don't disagree with this choice.
Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith <ssmith@forumone.com>) concur
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takka