W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2008-01-09 to 2008-01-16.

88 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Publication decision process
  2. Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?
  3. Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well?

1. Publication decision process

Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. In this survey, you may indicate disagreement without formally objecting. 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. Should the question carry, any formal objections will be cited from the status section of the publication.

As publication is necessary for progress of the group and this is a non-technical question, we will decide it by counting votes. A quorum is 50 working group participants, including half the 28 participating W3C member organizations. Provided we have a quorum and at least 2/3rds of the non-blank votes are 'yes', the question carries.

If you're not familiar with the process of Working Draft publication, see the list of W3C working drafts, section 7.4.1 First Public Working Draft of the Process document, and the heartbeat requirement.

This survey is subject to change for the first day or so, i.e. until the end of the 10 January teleconference. Any comments on this decision process should go in the comment field below.

Details

Responder
Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>)
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>)
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>)
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>)
David Andersson (David Andersson <liorean@gmail.com>)
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>)
Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor <excors@gmail.com>)
Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>)
Danny Liang (Danny Liang <danny.glue@gmail.com>)
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>)
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>)
Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois <Mark@webprofessionals.org>)
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>)
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>)
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>)
Simon Myers (Simon Myers <Smylers@stripey.com>)
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>)
Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski <marekp.w3c@gmail.com>)
Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>)
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>)
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>)
Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka <moz@jeka.info>)
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>)
Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall <rdm@rdmsoft.com>)
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) I find it unlikely that any unanimous decision will ever be made within a WG of this size, and I find it likely that there will always be Formal Objections to any request to move a document to TR space.
Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>)
Bill Mason (Bill Mason <billm@accessibleinter.net>)
Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>)
Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis <scotfl@gmail.com>)
Doug Jones (Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>)
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>)
James Cassell (James Cassell <w3c@cyberpear.com>)
Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>)
Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch <wesley.upchurch@semcoinc.com>)
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>)
Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>)
Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm <mdrumm@wcupa.edu>)
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>)
Adam Nash (Adam Nash <adamn@wirespring.com>)
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>)
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>)
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>)
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>)
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>)
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>)
Jason White (Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>)
Ben Millard (Ben Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>)
Robert Burns (Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>)
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>)
Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann <jens.b@web.de>)
Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies <w3c-4@patrick.dark.name>)
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takkaria.org>)
John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>)
Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos <samaxes@gmail.com>)
Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>)
Orange (Stéphane Deschamps <stephane.deschamps@orange.com>)
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>)
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>)
AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver <kevin.lawver@corp.aol.com>)
ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik <marcin.hanclik@access-company.com>)
Apple, Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>)
Cisco Systems (Michael Whitley <miwhitle@cisco.com>)
BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>)
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>)
Mozilla Foundation (David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>)
Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh <Martyn.Haigh@betfair.com>)
mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart <sstewart@mtld.mobi>)
Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley <Michael.Lawley@csiro.au>)
Opera Software (Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>) I thought there was agreement already...
Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi <k-kidachi@mitsue.co.jp>)
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>)
Library of Congress (Justin Thorp <jthorp@gmail.com>)
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>)
Boeing Company (Scott Vesey <scott.r.vesey@boeing.com>)
Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier <navarr@gtaero.net>)
Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley <thomasjbradley@gmail.com>)
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>)
Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>)
Joshue O Connor (Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>)
IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>) In the next release I want to see full ARIA support.
International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio <p.popolizio@webprofession.com>)
Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>)
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>)
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>)
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>)
Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette <benoit.piette@gmail.com>)
Stanford University (Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>)
Microsoft Corp. (Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>)

2. Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?

Shall we release HTML 5 as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, the co-chairs (Dan Connolly and Chris Wilson) will choose between v1.344 (Thu Dec 20 21:42:20 2007 UTC) and any later revisions from the editors this week.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Abstain 7
Yes 78
No 1
Formally Object 2

Details

Responder Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?Rationale
Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>) Yes
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>) Yes
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>) Yes
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>) Yes
David Andersson (David Andersson <liorean@gmail.com>) Yes
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>) Yes Release early and often. More critical and potentially useful feedback is out there.
Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor <excors@gmail.com>) Yes
Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>) Yes
Danny Liang (Danny Liang <danny.glue@gmail.com>) Yes
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>) Yes
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>) Yes
Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois <Mark@webprofessionals.org>) Yes
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>) Yes
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>) Yes
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>) Yes
Simon Myers (Simon Myers <Smylers@stripey.com>) Yes
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>) Yes The publication should include a note reminding W3C process, a link to the design principles, and an explicit call to comments...
Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski <marekp.w3c@gmail.com>) Yes
Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>) Yes It's vitally important we establish a heartbeat for the spec. I acknowledge there are unresolved issues. I think it is even useful to publish those issues and (hopefully) receive wider feedback (conversely a lack of feedback itself will be a telling thing).
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>) Yes
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>) Yes
Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka <moz@jeka.info>) Yes
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>) Yes There is little purpose in delay, since most of the contents have been available and debated for month and this is intended to be a first working draft, not a last call.
Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall <rdm@rdmsoft.com>) Yes
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) Yes Yes, for what progress can we make if we cannot publish a WD until every last issue is addressed? Nobody has infinite time.
Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>) Yes
Bill Mason (Bill Mason <billm@accessibleinter.net>) Yes
Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>) Yes
Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis <scotfl@gmail.com>) Yes
Doug Jones (Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>) Yes
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>) Yes The name of the specification may indeed perpetuate misconception that HTML 5 is not compatible with XHTML.

Given that, comments on the initial draft may focus on pointless discussions on superiority of XHTML rather than draft's merits.

However this isn't a critical issue and shouldn't be keeping WG from going forward.
James Cassell (James Cassell <w3c@cyberpear.com>) Yes
Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>) Yes
Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch <wesley.upchurch@semcoinc.com>) Yes
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>) Yes
Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>) Yes
Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm <mdrumm@wcupa.edu>) Yes
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>) Yes
Adam Nash (Adam Nash <adamn@wirespring.com>) Yes It sure is a working draft.
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>) Yes
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>) Yes
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>) Yes As a working draft it's naturally to contain issues (major and minor ones). The advantages of a "working draft" are clear and there's no reason not to release the draft as such.
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>) Yes We're already beyond the requirements and getting more input from outside the WG can only help.
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>) Yes
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>) Yes
Jason White (Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>) Abstain The Status section of the current editors' draft does not clarify sufficiently
that publication as a W3C Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C,
its members, or participants in the working group of the contents of the
specification. It should also be clarified that any aspect of the
specification may be revised, so that potential implementors do not (drawing
on the current wording regarding maturity) make assumptions concerning which
aspects of the document are mature and hence open to implementation, in a way
that could later be taken as grounds for not changing those parts of the
specification which have been subject to early implementation.

With suitable disclaimers in place in the Status section, I would support
publication, as this is a formal heartbeat requirement, not an endorsement of
the specification by the working group, and it would be beneficial for a
working draft to be circulated publicly for wider review and comment.
Ben Millard (Ben Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>) Yes * To fulfil the heartbeat requirement.
* To make HTMLWG's progress more public.
* The increased publicity may bring in more volunteers to do research and other work.
Robert Burns (Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>) Formally Object The process has not moved forward according to W3 procedures: especially in the spirit of consensus building. Complaints in these questionnaire responses that claim no hope of consensus could ever be established reflect the sentiments of those from a single block of the group that believes it can simply push through its agenda regardless of the spirit of W3 process and without trying to build consensus. A W3 recommendation created under such circumstances will not become an effective standard. Rather than decreasing the number of votes needed for an action to pass the working group, we should focus on building consensus and balancing the different interests involved.
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>) Yes
Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann <jens.b@web.de>) Yes
Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies <w3c-4@patrick.dark.name>) Yes
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takkaria.org>) Yes
John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>) Yes
Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos <samaxes@gmail.com>) Yes The main reason to say yes is that releasing the working draft will help getting more input from outside the WG.

Although I've some notes:
I think now it's Adobe's Flash instead of Macromedia's Flash (in section "1.1. Scope").
How is this specification related with other devices? I think it would be appropriate to define other relations in the section "1.1. Scope" (e.g. "1.1.4. Relationship to XHTML Mobile Profile (XHTML-MP)").
I don't agree with the section "1.4.1. HTML vs XHTML" where the use of XHTML5 is discouraged since it has numerous advantages.
How does HTML5/XHTML5 handle new features available since XHTML 1.1 like XHTML Modularization?
Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>) Yes Although I share concerns about the working group leadership, processes and some of the content within the current draft, I do not see that attempting to block the working draft publication as a worthwhile course of action at this time.
Orange (Stéphane Deschamps <stephane.deschamps@orange.com>) Yes I have noted that this in no way means that consensus *has* been definitely achieved, re: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>) Yes
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>) Yes
AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver <kevin.lawver@corp.aol.com>) Yes
ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik <marcin.hanclik@access-company.com>) Yes
Apple, Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>) Yes See previous survey on this topic. This survey should be unnecessary - the last survey was pretty clear.
Cisco Systems (Michael Whitley <miwhitle@cisco.com>) Yes
BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>) Yes
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>) Yes My main reason for voting Yes on the 12 January 2008 document is to make sure that there is a stable Draft of this document that remains current for a significant period of time and allows mature comment to be made on it before the next Working Draft is released.

I think the current document does not make clear the relationship between XHTML 1.0, HTML 4.01, XHTML 5, HTML 5 and XHTML 2. I think this needs to be made clear by W3C when this Draft is issued and make it clear that there is currently no agreement on any of the propsed changes. In Europe, governments, companies and institutions have made significant investments in XHTML 1.1 which should be protected and their path forward made clear.
Mozilla Foundation (David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>) Yes
Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh <Martyn.Haigh@betfair.com>) Yes
mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart <sstewart@mtld.mobi>) Yes
Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley <Michael.Lawley@csiro.au>) Yes
Opera Software (Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>) Yes
Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi <k-kidachi@mitsue.co.jp>) Yes
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>) Formally Object The (X)HTML5 specification should not be published.

This group is being led by the WHATWG and due to my ideas/contributions clashing with those of the WHATWGs my input has been deliberately ignored.

I have repeatedly raised my concerns on the public-html list and privately with the chairs and editor but they have only ever denied such problems with HTML WG's process.

The naming of the specification as "HTML 5" is totally inappropriate and needs to be changed to "HTML5 and XHTML5". As it stands XHTML5 will never be an official W3C recommendation but HTML5 will be. This is not acceptable as the specification is equally HTML and XHTML. Just a few sentences mentioning XHTML5 in the spec is not sufficient to ensure the adoption/support for the XHTML5 language.

No versions of the spec should be published until these problems have been addressed and the appropriate changes are made to the draft.
Library of Congress (Justin Thorp <jthorp@gmail.com>) Yes
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>) Yes
Boeing Company (Scott Vesey <scott.r.vesey@boeing.com>) Yes
Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier <navarr@gtaero.net>) Abstain I do not believe HTML5 should be published as a working draft until more of the inconsistencies are worked out.
Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley <thomasjbradley@gmail.com>) Yes
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>) Yes The First Public Working Draft is, according to the W3C Process Document, a “signal to the community to begin reviewing the document.” It is explicitly called out to be “unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.” The Process Document and Patent Policy further details how to handle Patent Disclosure and similar issues at any point up to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation.

Thus the two issues which to my mind might argue against the speedy publication of FPWD — possible patent implications of not including a Theora requirement for video, and any technical or principled reservations about the content of the current Editor's Draft — are *not* relevant to the question of whether to publish a FPWD now.

Specifically addressing my concerns, the Process and Patent Policy guarantee that publication of FPWD without a Theora requirement for video can not be an argument against adding such a requirement in a further Working Draft (or other deliverable). Further, any technical change to the specification — however fundamental — should not be hindered by the mere fact of the current specification's publication as FPWD.

After some considerable deliberation of these points, I would therefore vote in favour of publication of FPWD.
Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>) No I support Laura Carlson's position, but my reservations both about process and content are so great that I feel that a simple abstention is insufficient. Therefore, I vote "No".

I find the current draft extremely unsatisfactory, not only in terms of its provenance (it is basically a WHATWG paper, with some minor input from this group) but also in terms of its conflation of issues. I would like to see separate specifications for (a) syntax and semantics, (b) parsing and error recovery, and (c) rendering.
Joshue O Connor (Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>) Yes Warts and all.
IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>) Yes It is time for a public W3C version which we can reference.
International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio <p.popolizio@webprofession.com>) Abstain
Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) Abstain
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>) Yes
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>) Yes Although I disagree with many aspects of HTML5 there should be stable WD so all interested parties can review it and comment on it.
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>) Abstain Although the process has not embraced consensus building and I do not agree with some of the content in the current draft, attempting to block publication is not a productive action at this time.

Public review and comment from outside the Working Group are vitally needed and should be vigorously sought, especially in regard to accessibility features being dropped or changed.

Like others have mentioned suitable disclaimers are required stipulating that publication:

1. DOES NOT constitute endorsement of the entire specified feature set.
2. DOES NOT indicate that the working group feels that the document in its present state should become a W3C Recommendation.

In addition it should also be prominently noted that the decision to publish:

3. WAS NOT reached by consensus, a core value of the W3C.
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus
Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette <benoit.piette@gmail.com>) Abstain I did not have the time to review the document in a satisfactory manner
Stanford University (Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>) Abstain I wish to see clearly stated that:
- nothing in this draft is carved in stone but every aspect is subject to further discussion and revision
- the publication of the document as a first working draft does *not* mean that consensus within the group has been reached [http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus]
- that the WG invites all interested parties to review and comment
- I agree with Laura Carlson that “Public review and comment from outside the Working Group are vitally needed and should be vigorously sought, especially in regard to accessibility features being dropped or changed.“
Microsoft Corp. (Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>) Yes Microsoft strongly supports the effort within W3C to develop HTML5 and we plan to continue to be deeply involved in this work. While we support the release of a working draft of HTML5 at this time, we note that the current draft covers a number of deliverables that are outside the scope of the current HTML WG charter and thus raises issues as to their status under various W3C rules. Following the W3C process is critically important to the healthy operation of the organization and to fulfilling the expectations of the participants in this effort and in others. We therefore ask that the W3C address the scope issues as soon as possible (by amending the charter and/or moving deliverables to other groups) so that the HTML5 work can continue without any ambiguity or question as to scope.

3. Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well?

Provided the question above carries, Shall we release HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, revision 1.33 of 2007-10-22 11:17:20 plus any publication-related changes (e.g. status section, typos, broken links) agreed by the editor (Anne van Kesteren) and one of Dan Connolly, Chris Wilson, or Mike Smith.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Abstain 6
Yes 74
No 7
Formally Object 1

Details

Responder Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" specification as a W3C Working Draft as well?Rationale
Marco Neumann (Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>) Yes
James Graham (James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>) Yes
Edward O'Connor (Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>) Yes
David Håsäther (David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>) Yes
David Andersson (David Andersson <liorean@gmail.com>) Yes
Brad Fults (Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>) Yes
Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor <excors@gmail.com>) Yes
Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>) Yes
Danny Liang (Danny Liang <danny.glue@gmail.com>) Yes
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>) Yes
Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings <arthur.jennings@gmail.com>) Yes
Mark DuBois (Mark DuBois <Mark@webprofessionals.org>) Yes
Ben West (Ben West <bewest@gmail.com>) Yes
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>) Yes
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>) Yes
Simon Myers (Simon Myers <Smylers@stripey.com>) Yes
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>) Yes
Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski <marekp.w3c@gmail.com>) Yes
Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>) Yes Yes, I think these two documents should always be published in tandem. The differences doc must be accurately reflect the diffs between HTML4 and HTML5... there is no point having this document if it does not keep pace with the HTML5 spec.

It is a very useful index/introduction to HTML5 for people familiar with HTML4.
Krijn Hoetmer (Krijn Hoetmer <w3c@qontent.nl>) Yes
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall <me@neovov.com>) Yes
Jürgen Jeka (Jürgen Jeka <moz@jeka.info>) Yes
Matthew Raymond (Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@insightbb.com>) Yes The utility of the document is sufficient to justify publication.
Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall <rdm@rdmsoft.com>) Yes
Geoffrey Sneddon ( <>) Yes While I believe this document has one or two issues (that have already been brought up on public-html), I strongly believe with a spec of the size of HTML 5 that publishing a list of differences from the last major version is important (I also believe that this should be an informative appendix to the spec, but I digress from this survey).
Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>) Yes
Bill Mason (Bill Mason <billm@accessibleinter.net>) Yes
Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>) Yes
Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis <scotfl@gmail.com>) Yes
Doug Jones (Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>) Yes
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>) No List of absent attributes still lacks clear rationale for their omission.

Readers unfamiliar with the subject may jump to wrong conclusions, especially about attributes related to accessibility.
James Cassell (James Cassell <w3c@cyberpear.com>) Yes
Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>) Yes
Wesley Upchurch (Wesley Upchurch <wesley.upchurch@semcoinc.com>) Yes
Terry Morris (Terry Morris <MorrisW3C@gmail.com>) Yes
Matthew Turvey (Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>) Yes
Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm <mdrumm@wcupa.edu>) Yes
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen <w3c@have-skill.com>) Yes
Adam Nash (Adam Nash <adamn@wirespring.com>) Yes
Maurice Carey (Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>) Yes
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>) Yes
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>) Yes If the HTML 5 working draft is "v1.344 (Thu Dec 20 21:42:20 2007 UTC) and any later revisions from the editors this week.", the "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" document needs to be updated before it can be published. The former had some major changes since the differences document was written.
Ryan King (Ryan King <ryan@theryanking.com>) Yes This will help communicate to the larger community what exactly HTML5 is.
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser <wileyluxe@gmail.com>) Yes
Carol King (Carol King <sourcefix@gmail.com>) Yes
Jason White (Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>) Abstain The same reasons hold as in question 2 above.
Ben Millard (Ben Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>) Yes It helps to focus review on the drafted changes from what standards-aware authors are used to.
Robert Burns (Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>) No While this document should be released along side the HTML working draft, neither is ready in terms of W3 process.
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell <jmb@netsurf-browser.org>) Yes
Jens Bannmann (Jens Bannmann <jens.b@web.de>) Yes
Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies <w3c-4@patrick.dark.name>) Yes
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell <andi@takkaria.org>) Yes
John Vernaleo (John Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>) Yes I'm beginning to think that for authors, this document is probably informally more important that the HTML5 spec. More people know (sort of) HTML 4 than know how to read a long spec.
Samuel Santos (Samuel Santos <samaxes@gmail.com>) Yes This document is indeed a critical one, it's very important to have more examples mainly in the section "3.2. New Elements".
Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>) Yes see rationale for Q2 above.
Orange (Stéphane Deschamps <stephane.deschamps@orange.com>) Yes
W3C/Keio (Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>) Yes
Nokia Corporation (Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>) Yes
AOL LLC (Kevin Lawver <kevin.lawver@corp.aol.com>) Yes
ACCESS Co., Ltd. DUPLICATE (Marcin Hanclik <marcin.hanclik@access-company.com>) Yes
Apple, Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>) Yes
Cisco Systems (Michael Whitley <miwhitle@cisco.com>) Yes
BEA Systems, Inc. (David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>) Yes
Oxford Brookes University (Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>) Abstain A factual Note which just lists the differences between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 would be of value. The current document is a mixture of such a Note with subjective views concerning motivation etc. The whole of Section 1 could be deleted, most of Section 2 also. Section 3 should just point out the PPROPOSED changes with references to where the descriptions can be found.
Mozilla Foundation (David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>) Yes
Betfair Limited (Martyn Haigh <Martyn.Haigh@betfair.com>) Yes
mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart <sstewart@mtld.mobi>) Yes
Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley <Michael.Lawley@csiro.au>) Yes
Opera Software (Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>) Yes
Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Kazuhito Kidachi <k-kidachi@mitsue.co.jp>) Yes
Dean Edridge (Dean Edridge <dean@dean.kiwi>) Formally Object Referring to a complete specification as "HTML5" when people associate HTML5 and HTML with text/html will always cause confusion.

1) "Defines a single language called HTML 5 which can be written in a "custom" HTML syntax and in XML syntax."

I think that's very misleading. And in fact incorrect. HTML5 cannot be written in an XML syntax (at the moment). It can only be written in a text/html syntax. Also this document never mentions XHTML5 even though the author mentions an XML syntax.
I think this document just makes things more confusing and is additional proof that the specification (X)HTML5 needs to renamed with an explicit mention of XHTML5.

2) "For the XML syntax authors have to use..."
Why not tell them that it is called XHTML5?

3) Why not explain the differences between XHTML1 and XHTML5?

Given the specification defines HTML5 and XHTML5 equally; I'm surprised that it seems so important to have a document describing the differences between a set of old and a new text/html languages (HTML & HTML5).

I believe that this document should be reworded to indicate that HTML5 refers to text/html and XHTML5 refers to application/xhtml+xml or application/xml.
Library of Congress (Justin Thorp <jthorp@gmail.com>) Yes But... I think there should be an alternate version of this doc published that's not in the TR format. Most (outside the W3C community and a lot within it) don't find the TR format very palatable and this is a doc that we actually want to get folks to read.
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>) Yes
Boeing Company (Scott Vesey <scott.r.vesey@boeing.com>) Yes
Navarr Barnier (Navarr Barnier <navarr@gtaero.net>) No The full differences between HTML4 and HTML5 are not yet ready, in my personal opinion. Such a document should wait until HTML5 is in its later stages.
Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley <thomasjbradley@gmail.com>) Yes
Terje Bless (Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>) Yes I consider substantial documentation of the differences from the previous Recommendation(s) a critical success factor for this WG. While I may have reservations about the format (TR, Note, Appendix, etc.) and other such factors, none of these are prevented from being corrected in the future by publication as a Working Draft.

I therefore vote in favour of publication of the differences document as a WD.
Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>) No Here I support the positions taken by Robert Burns and Bob Hopgood. And since I have voted "No" to releasing the spec., it would seem nonsensical to vote otherwise for releasing the differences.
Joshue O Connor (Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>) Yes
IBM Corporation (Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>) Yes This is necessary for comparison.
International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio <p.popolizio@webprofession.com>) Abstain
Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) Abstain
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>) No that's a STRONG no -- i think the WG needs to take a closer "look" at the differences document before it is issued -- will the difference document be updated as the HTML5 WG is updated? how will the process of updating be handled -- by hand or automated? does anne, given all of his other commitments, need more editorial assistance? furthermore, since the HTML5 working draft is being released with reservations on the part of a not insignificant portion of the HTML WG, it would make more sense to achieve more stability with the HTML5 working draft, before comparing it to HTML4
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>) Abstain
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>) No I agree with Kornel Lesinski and Gregory Rosmaita's rationale.
Benoit Piette (Benoit Piette <benoit.piette@gmail.com>) Abstain I did not have the time to review the document in a satisfactory manner
Stanford University (Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>) No Documentation of the differences from the last major version is of great value to both WG members and authors,
- helping reviewers focus on what has changed and
- helping introduce authors who don’t want to read the whole specification to HTML5,
but:
- rationale needs to be provided for attribute list (especially 3.6 Absent Attributes).
- examples or links to examples in the specification should be provided (esp. 3.2 New Elements)
- the differences document needs to be in sync with the specification. If it does not keep pace, it will cause confusion.
Microsoft Corp. (Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>) Yes

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following W3C Members and Invited Experts have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Web3D Consortium: Don Brutzman <brutzman@nps.edu>
  2. Comcast Corporation: Mark Vickers <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>,Sree Kotay <Sree_Kotay@cable.comcast.com>,Jeremy LaCivita <jeremy.lacivita@theplatform.com>,David Mays <david_mays@comcast.com>,Michael Chen <michael_chen@cable.comcast.com>,Bill Mandel <bill.mandel@nbcuni.com>,Sheau Ng <Sheau.ng@nbcuni.com>,Patrick Ladd <Pat_Ladd2@cable.comcast.com>,Glenn Deen <glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>,John Riviello <john_riviello@comcast.com>,Rustam Khashimkhodjaev <Rustam_Khashimkhodjaev@cable.comcast.com>,Richard Grzeczkowski <richard_grzeczkowski@cable.comcast.com>,Cory Heslip <cory_heslip@cable.comcast.com>
  3. Disruptive Innovations: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
  4. Educational Testing Service: Markku Hakkinen <mhakkinen@ets.org>,Jason White <jjwhite@ets.org>
  5. Qihoo 360 Technology Co Ltd: Huan Ren <renhuan@360.cn>,Hanrui Gao <gaohanrui@360.cn>,yubo zhou <zhouyubo@360.cn>
  6. Adobe Systems Inc.: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>,Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>,Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>,Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>,Raul Hudea <rhudea@adobe.com>,Raghavan Gurumurthy <raghavan@adobe.com>,Mayank Kumar <mayankk@adobe.com>,Monikandan S <smonikan@adobe.com>,Dragos Georgita <dgeorgit@adobe.com>,Christopher Bank <cbank@adobe.com>,Rik Cabanier <Cabanier@adobe.com>,Kevin Streeter <kstreete@adobe.com>,Michael Thornburgh <mthornbu@adobe.com>,Glenn Eguchi <geguchi@adobe.com>
  7. INSTITUT TELECOM: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
  8. Tencent: Xitong Huang <stonehuang@tencent.com>,Min Ren <minren@tencent.com>
  9. Pearson plc: Suzanne Taylor <Suzanne.Taylor@pearson.com>,Greg Davis <greg.davis@pearson.com>
  10. Inswave Systems Co., Ltd.: WOOGLAE KIM <wlkim@inswave.com>
  11. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. (NTT): Kensaku KOMATSU <kensaku.komatsu@gmail.com>,Youichi Takashima <takashima.youichi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  12. Rakuten,Inc.: Kunio Ito <kunio.ito@mail.rakuten.com>,Tsutomu Ogasawara <tsutomu.ogasawara@mail.rakuten.com>,Jose Segura <jose.segura@mail.rakuten.com>
  13. GRIN Technologies, Inc.: Daniel Austin <daniel.austin@grintech.net>
  14. HTML5 Converged Technology Forum: Hyejin Lee <hjlee@html5forum.or.kr>
  15. Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB): Sally Cain <sally.cain@rnib.org.uk>
  16. British Broadcasting Corporation: David Evans <david.evans@rd.bbc.co.uk>
  17. Alibaba Group: Dapeng Liu <max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com>,Shaohang Yang <shaohang.ysh@alibaba-inc.com>
  18. Huawei: wu chou <wu.chou@huawei.com>,GANG LIANG <gang.liang@huawei.com>,Alex Giladi <alex.giladi@huawei.com>,Milan Patel <Milan.Patel@huawei.com>,Hao Jing <jh.jinghao@huawei.com>
  19. Voxeo: Daniel Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
  20. Avaya Communications: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>,A.S. Krishnakumar <ask@avaya.com>
  21. Electronic Frontier Foundation: Danny O'Brien <danny@eff.org>,Seth Schoen <schoen@eff.org>
  22. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI): Kangchan Lee <chan@w3.org>,Jonathan Jeon <hollobit@etri.re.kr>,WonSuk Lee <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>,jongyoul Park <jongyoul@etri.re.kr>
  23. NIC.br - Brazilian Network Information Center: Reinaldo Ferraz <reinaldo@nic.br>,Yaso Córdova <yaso@nic.br>,Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício <nathalia@nic.br>,Deblyn prado <deblyn@nic.br>
  24. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft: Stefan Kaiser <stefan.kaiser@fokus.fraunhofer.de>,Stefan Pham <stefan.pham@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
  25. W3C Staff:
  26. National ICT Australia (NICTA) Ltd: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
  27. European Broadcasting Union (EBU-UER): Jean-Pierre EVAIN <evain@ebu.ch>,Bram Tullemans <tullemans@ebu.ch>
  28. MITRE Corporation: Stanley Manoski <manoski@mitre.org>
  29. Baidu, Inc.: Eva Lingyun Jing <jinglingyun@baidu.com>,Xingrong Guo <guoxingrong@baidu.com>,Rayi Lei <leiyi@baidu.com>,jiexuan gao <gaojiexuan@baidu.com>,Xiaoqing Yang <yangxiaoqing@baidu.com>,Xuejian Li <lixuejian@baidu.com>,Zuncheng Yang <yangzuncheng@baidu.com>,Qianglong Zheng <zhengqianglong@baidu.com>,Zhou Shen <shenzhou@baidu.com>,Duoyi Wu <wuduoyi@baidu.com>,Zheng Jia <jiazheng@baidu.com>,Weifeng Feng <fengweifeng@baidu.com>,Damin Hu <hudamin@baidu.com>,Yang Liu <liuyang12@baidu.com>,Zhixing Lei <leizhixing@baidu.com>,Honggang Tang <tanghonggang@baidu.com>,Kefeng Li <buaadallas@gmail.com>,Xu Ma <maxu@baidu.com>,Junzhong Liu <liujunzhong@baidu.com>,lei wang <wanglei03@baidu.com>,Yiling Gu <guyiling@baidu.com>,Xueqing Huang <huangxueqing@baidu.com>,Zefa Xiong <xiongzefa@baidu.com>,shanglin chen <chenshanglin@baidu.com>,Dongsheng Zhang <zhangdongsheng@baidu.com>,Ping Wu <wuping02@baidu.com>,Yao Tong <tongyao@baidu.com>,Bin Chen <chenbin01@baidu.com>,Lei Wang <wanglei@baidu.com>,Pengcheng Guo <guopengcheng@baidu.com>,Xie Jianhui <xiejianhui@baidu.com>,Yujie Jiang <jiangyujie@baidu.com>,Chris Wong <huanghoujin@baidu.com>,Yiliang LIU <liuyiliang@baidu.com>,mingqiang zhang <imcnan@gmail.com>,xueliang fan <fanxueliang@baidu.com>,Yue Min <minyue@baidu.com>,Min Li <limin04@baidu.com>,yaolong wang <wangyaolong@baidu.com>,Tao Liang <liangtao01@baidu.com>
  30. Newphoria Corporation: Futomi Hatano <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
  31. Intel Corporation: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>,Dzung Tran <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>,Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>,Dongseong Hwang <dongseong.hwang@intel.com>
  32. SAP SE: Mark Crawford <mark.crawford@sap.com>,Stefan Schnabel <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
  33. Department of Internal Affairs, New Zealand Government: Jason Kiss <jason@accessibleculture.org>
  34. Verimatrix, Inc.: Petr Peterka <ppeterka@verimatrix.com>,Tom Handal <thandal@verimatrix.com>,Niels Thorwirth <nthorwirth@verimatrix.com>
  35. Hachette Livre: Gabino Alonso <gabinovincent@gmail.com>,Sam Langdon <sam.langdon@hachette.co.uk>
  36. Google, Inc.: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>,T.V. Raman <raman@google.com>,Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>,Katsuhiko Momoi <momoi@google.com>,Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>,Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>,Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com>,Mark Miller <erights@google.com>,Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>,Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>,Takuya Oikawa <takuya@google.com>,Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>,Andrew Scherkus <scherkus@google.com>,Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>,David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>,Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>,Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>,Ami Fischman <fischman@google.com>,Tom Wiltzius <wiltzius@google.com>,Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>,Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
  37. ERICSSON: Magnus Olsson <magnus.olsson@ericsson.com>,Per-Erik Brodin <per-erik.brodin@ericsson.com>
  38. jQuery Foundation: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>,Brian Kardell <hitchjs@gmail.com>
  39. Skynav, Inc.: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
  40. Sikos Web Consulting: Leslie Sikos <sikos@sikoswebconsulting.com.au>
  41. Igalia: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
  42. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.: Youngsun Ryu <ysryu@samsung.com>,MING JIN <ming.jin.web@gmail.com>,Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
  43. Tomo-Digi Corporation: Shoko Okuma <okuma@tomo-digi.co.jp>,Fumitaka Watanabe <fwtnb@tomo-digi.co.jp>,Yoshimitsu Tsurimaki <tsurimaki@tomo-digi.co.jp>,Yusuke Maehama <maehama@tomo-digi.co.jp>
  44. MovieLabs: James Helman <jhelman@movielabs.com>,Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
  45. The Paciello Group, LLC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>,Patrick Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>,Gez Lemon <glemon@paciellogroup.com>,Ian Pouncey <w3c@ipouncey.co.uk>,Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>,Billy Gregory <bgregory@paciellogroup.com>
  46. Deque Systems, Inc.: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
  47. Cable Television Laboratories Inc: Bob Lund <b.lund@cablelabs.com>,Clarke Stevens <c.stevens@cablelabs.com>
  48. Home Box Office, Inc.: Cyril Rickelton-Abdi <cyril.rickelton-abdi@turner.com>,Jamil Ellis <jamil.ellis@hbo.com>,Nolan Butcher <nolan.butcher@hbo.com>,Pramod Patlolla <pramod.patlolla@turner.com>,Cooper Pope <cooper.pope@turner.com>
  49. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation: Akira Torii <Torii.Akira@bp.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>,Shun-ichi Sekiguchi <Sekiguchi.Shunichi@eb.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>,Hirofumi Nishikawa <Nishikawa.Hirofumi@cs.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>,Hiroyuki Yamada <Yamada.Hiroyuki@dn.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>
  50. Sony Corporation: Tatsuya Igarashi <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>,Motomasa Futagami <Motomasa.Futagami@jp.sony.com>,Norifumi Kikkawa <norifumi.kikkawa@jp.sony.com>,Kazuhiko Takabayashi <kazuhiko.takabayashi@jp.sony.com>,Shinya Maruyama <Shinya.Maruyama@jp.sony.com>
  51. National Association of Broadcasters: So Vang <svang@nab.org>
  52. Yandex: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
  53. Center for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI): Jack Jansen <jack@cwi.nl>,Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
  54. Netflix Inc.: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>,Mick Hakobyan <mhakobyan@netflix.com>
  55. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA): Eric VonColln <eric.voncolln@navy.mil>
  56. Markus Fischer <markus@fischer.name>
  57. Justin Anthony Knapp <justinkoavf@gmail.com>
  58. Moto Ishizawa <summerwind.jp+w3c@gmail.com>
  59. Jedi Lin <JediLin@Gmail.com>
  60. Robert Stern <rstern@gmail.com>
  61. Jason Boyd <jason@pixelboxdesign.co.uk>
  62. Hernan Beati <hernanbeati@gmail.com>
  63. Chockalingam Muthian <chockam@gmail.com>
  64. Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>
  65. Jon Hughes <jon@phazm.com>
  66. Dean Leigh <dean.leigh@deanleigh.co.uk>
  67. Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
  68. Ben Barber <barberboy@gmail.com>
  69. Lukáš Čihák <lukas.cihak@mensa.cz>
  70. Channy Yun <channy@gmail.com>
  71. Alejandro Fernandez <alejandro@mediadvanced.com>
  72. Michael Turnwall <w3c@turnwall.net>
  73. Eihab Ibrahim <eihabibrahim@gmail.com>
  74. Alvar Laigna <laigna@gmail.com>
  75. Lisa Seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
  76. Shane Thacker <shanethacker@gmail.com>
  77. Don Kiely <donkiely@computer.org>
  78. Grzegorz Babula <gbabula@gmail.com>
  79. Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
  80. Jens Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
  81. Grant Simpson <glsimpso@gmail.com>
  82. Adrian Roselli <roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
  83. Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
  84. Patrick D F Ion <ion@ams.org>
  85. Vilem Malek <murphy@malek.cz>
  86. Jane Lee <applegoddess@gmail.com>
  87. Greg Johnson <greg.johnson@gmail.com>
  88. Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
  89. François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
  90. Tomas Caspers <tomas@tomascaspers.de>
  91. Zhihong Mao <zhihong.mao@gmail.com>
  92. David Child <dave@addedbytes.com>
  93. Dionysios Synodinos <synodinos@gmail.com>
  94. Martijn Croonen <martijn@martijnc.be>
  95. Joseph Karr O'Connor <josephoconnor@mac.com>
  96. Han Xu <collin@w3china.org>
  97. Jim Walsh <jim@jwalshcreative.com>
  98. Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
  99. Erik van Kempen <erikvankempen@gmail.com>
  100. Ron Reisor <ron@udel.edu>
  101. David Choi <daaave@gmail.com>
  102. Matt Lee <mattl@cnuk.org>
  103. Jonas Schneider <js.sokrates@gmail.com>
  104. Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
  105. Jude Robinson <dotcode+w3@gmail.com>
  106. Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
  107. David Bills <w3@dfbills.com>
  108. Mike Amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
  109. Gian Luca Marroni <gmarroni@libero.it>
  110. Jonathan Neal <jonathantneal@gmail.com>
  111. Nick Fitzsimons <w3@nickfitz.co.uk>
  112. Andrew Norman <idonothaveacat@gmail.com>
  113. Nik Thierry <me@thisemail.ca>
  114. Martin Kliehm <w3c@kliehm.com>
  115. Othmane Benyoucef <othmane_benyoucef@hotmail.com>
  116. Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
  117. David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
  118. Robert Accettura <robert@accettura.com>
  119. Josh Lawton <w3c@joshlawton.com>
  120. Craig Buckler <craigbuckler@gmail.com>
  121. Andrew Ramsden <andrew@irama.org>
  122. Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
  123. Hasan Savran <hsavran@kent.edu>
  124. Mark Sadecki <mark.sadecki+w3c@gmail.com>
  125. Pedro Xavier Jorge <pedro.xavierjorge@gmail.com>
  126. Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmail.com>
  127. Giovanni Gentili <giovanni.gentili@gmail.com>
  128. Erik Isaksen <erik_isaksen@hotmail.com>
  129. Ben Dalton <bendalton@gmail.com>
  130. Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
  131. Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@sidar.org>
  132. S Emerson <w3c@accretewebsolutions.ca>
  133. Dale Hudjik <dale.hudjik@gmail.com>
  134. Shefik Macauley <allknightaccess@gmail.com>
  135. Anders Bondehagen <anders@bondehagen.com>
  136. Marco Kotrotsos <Marco@mlabs.nl>
  137. Andrew Davis <andrew@diff.mx>
  138. David MacDonald <David100@sympatico.ca>
  139. Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
  140. Morten Tollefsen <morten@medialt.no>
  141. Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
  142. Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
  143. Brian Blakely <anewpage.media@gmail.com>
  144. Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes@stommepoes.nl>
  145. Vicente García Díaz <vicegd@live.com>
  146. Joseph D'Andrea <jdandrea@gmail.com>
  147. Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
  148. Ole Riesenberg <or@oleriesenberg.com>
  149. Vladimir Sinelnikov <sinelnikov@gmail.com>
  150. RAVI CHANDRA RAVULAPATI <ravichandra480@gmail.com>

Send an email to all the non-responders.


Compact view of the results

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.129 2015/07/01 16:13:23 kahan Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)