Error correcting
For a man who says he would rather not lead the effort of the new W3C HTML WG, Chris Wilson seems to be making quite an effort to make the argument that he is the best man for the job.
I agree with Daniel Glazman that unless the new HTML WG starts out with at least tacit support of the WHAT-WG then a bigger mess than the one we have now would be scarily likely. Reality, it seems to me, would pretty much dictate that politics and back-channel politicking is and will be alive and well and unavoidable in the development of HTML in the near future. I’d love to be wrong.
Microsoft has refused to take part in the WHAT-WG, which is unofficially supported by the other main browser players by the participation of staff and actual implementation of the draft (CANVAS and INPUT type=search come to mind). Be sure, politically speaking, it is very much in Microsoft’s interest to be an influential player in the new HTML WG and to see that the WHAT-WG becomes irrelevant. The W3C must feel it is pretty much in the same place.
Microsoft and the W3C are currently in the awkward position where they either can’t or won’t take part in WHAT and so are on the side-line watching other players align their browser functionality and behaviour in an unprecedented way and are powerless to do much about it or influence it. Can you blame anyone for being suspicious of their motives?
Microsoft and the W3C finally faced a choice; either sit back and watch HTML (and emerging Web application standards) move outside their influence and formal or de-facto control or act quickly to regain it. It appears, not surprisingly, that they chose the latter.
I was the one who went to the W3C guys and said, “umm, you realize all the browser vendors are upset and think the HTML WG is on the wrong track entirely? How about we do something about that?”
Chris Wilson
