Forking - Revision history

Mjs: Let's not make this too personal.

2011-05-05T15:53:59Z

Let's not make this too personal.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 5 May 2011
Line 15:		Line 15:

	== Existing forks of HTML ==		== Existing forks of HTML ==
	(based on [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110430#l-179 IRC comment] ~~by Maciej~~; possibly not everything here is strictly a fork, could use classification and explanation work)		(based on [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110430#l-179 IRC comment]; possibly not everything here is strictly a fork, could use classification and explanation work)

	=== W3C-hosted forks ===		=== W3C-hosted forks ===

Aryeh Gregor: /* Existing forks of HTML */ Describe some of the forks a bit.

2011-05-04T20:15:56Z

Existing forks of HTML: Describe some of the forks a bit.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 4 May 2011
Line 34:		Line 34:
	=== Other forks ===		=== Other forks ===

	* [http://~~jp29~~.~~org~~/~~iso~~.~~htm~~ ISO HTML]		* [http://www.scss.tcd.ie/misc/15445/15445.html ISO HTML]: Diff spec.
	* [http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/affiliates/wap/wap-277-xhtmlmp-20011029-a.pdf XHTML-MP]		* [http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/affiliates/wap/wap-277-xhtmlmp-20011029-a.pdf XHTML-MP]: Apparently no free download. Reportedly not widely used.
	* [http://www.wapforum.org/what/technical.htm WML] ~~(apparently~~ no free download)		* [http://www.wapforum.org/what/technical.htm WML]: Apparently no free download. Reportedly very widely used and extremely harmful.
	* [http://webapp.etsi.org/workprogram/Report_WorkItem.asp?WKI_ID=19886 WTVML] ~~(apparently~~ no free download)		* [http://webapp.etsi.org/workprogram/Report_WorkItem.asp?WKI_ID=19886 WTVML]: Apparently no free download.
	* [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ WHATWG HTML]		* [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ WHATWG HTML]: No comment.
	* [http://www.ce.org/Standards/browseByCommittee_2757.asp CE-HTML] ~~(apparently~~ only a preview available for free)		* [http://www.ce.org/Standards/browseByCommittee_2757.asp CE-HTML]: Apparently only a preview is available for free, which contains almost nothing beyond the table of contents.
	* [http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-publications.html EPUB]		* [http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-publications.html EPUB]: Diff spec.
	* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]		* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]: Accessibility-oriented fork. Seems to attempt to respec from scratch, but it doesn't sound like it has anyone actually implementing it.
	* [http://developers.whatwg.org HTML5 for Web developers]
	* [http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/annotated-spec/canvas.html Philip Taylor's annotated canvas spec]		=== Not really forks ===
			* [http://developers.whatwg.org HTML5 for Web developers]: A subset of WHATWG HTML.
			* [http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/annotated-spec/canvas.html Philip Taylor's annotated canvas spec]: No normative differences, or at least isn't supposed to have normative differences.

	== Organizational forks ==		== Organizational forks ==

Hixie at 21:22, 2 May 2011

2011-05-02T21:22:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 2 May 2011
Line 67:		Line 67:
	** A national government could exempt itself from copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law in all cases.		** A national government could exempt itself from copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law in all cases.
	** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?		** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?
	** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (e.g., China).		** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (q.v., China).

	* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.		* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.

Zcorpan: /* Other forks */

2011-05-02T15:02:17Z

Other forks

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 2 May 2011
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]		* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]
	* [http://developers.whatwg.org HTML5 for Web developers]		* [http://developers.whatwg.org HTML5 for Web developers]
			* [http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/annotated-spec/canvas.html Philip Taylor's annotated canvas spec]

	== Organizational forks ==		== Organizational forks ==

Zcorpan: /* W3C-hosted forks */

2011-05-02T14:57:03Z

W3C-hosted forks

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 2 May 2011
Line 24:		Line 24:
	* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print/ XHTML-Print]		* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print/ XHTML-Print]
	* [http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/ HTML5 Edition for Web Authors]		* [http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/ HTML5 Edition for Web Authors]
			* [http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ HTML: The Markup Language]

	=== W3C-published but disavowed forks ===		=== W3C-published but disavowed forks ===

Zcorpan: /* W3C-hosted forks */

2011-05-02T14:55:26Z

W3C-hosted forks

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 2 May 2011
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/ XHTML 2]		* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/ XHTML 2]
	* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print/ XHTML-Print]		* [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print/ XHTML-Print]
			* [http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/ HTML5 Edition for Web Authors]

	=== W3C-published but disavowed forks ===		=== W3C-published but disavowed forks ===

Zcorpan: /* Other forks */

2011-05-02T14:54:27Z

Other forks

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 2 May 2011
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* [http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-publications.html EPUB]		* [http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-publications.html EPUB]
	* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]		* [http://html4all.org/HTMLDraft.html HTML 4.1]
			* [http://developers.whatwg.org HTML5 for Web developers]

	== Organizational forks ==		== Organizational forks ==

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking */ Mention Apple making up proprietary features to support iOS instead of forking the spec

2011-05-02T14:17:46Z

Supposed risks of forking: Mention Apple making up proprietary features to support iOS instead of forking the spec

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:17, 2 May 2011
Line 63:		Line 63:
	** A national government could exempt itself from copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law in all cases.		** A national government could exempt itself from copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law in all cases.
	** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?		** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?
	** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (c.f. China).		** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (e.g., China).

	* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.		* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.
			** In practice, vendors who want to add device-specific features commonly just add new features without forking the spec. For instance, Apple has made up its own [http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/appleapplications/reference/safariwebcontent/configuringwebapplications/configuringwebapplications.html proprietary features] such as <meta name="apple-touch-icon"> and <meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable"> to allow web pages to integrate better with the iOS browser. Forking the whole HTML spec would be a waste of time.

	== Advantages of allowing forking ==		== Advantages of allowing forking ==

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking / Remove something that's not an argument against the risks of forking, it's an argument about the irrelevance of W3C licensing to the possibility* of forking.

2011-05-02T14:14:09Z

Supposed risks of forking: Remove something that's not an argument against the risks of forking, it's an argument about the irrelevance of W3C licensing to the *possibility* of forking.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 2 May 2011
Line 64:		Line 64:
	** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?		** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?
	** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (c.f. China).		** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (c.f. China).
	** Whether the W3C allows forking or not, and even if we grant that a license could stop this, this scenario could already happen because the entire HTML spec is already under a liberal license at the WHATWG.

	* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.		* "Other undesirable forks could be for device specific variants of specs where it would be better for those groups to come into W3C [...] than to splinter html": When the W3C forks HTML (as it has in the past, see the list above), it is just as bad as when anyone else does. There is nothing special about the W3C here.

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking */ Clarify copyright law's effect on governments

2011-05-02T14:12:41Z

Supposed risks of forking: Clarify copyright law's effect on governments

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 2 May 2011
Line 61:		Line 61:

	* "A national government could create its own intentionally incompatible national version of the html specification in order to prevent general Web access from within that country": This argument is wrong at multiple levels:		* "A national government could create its own intentionally incompatible national version of the html specification in order to prevent general Web access from within that country": This argument is wrong at multiple levels:
	** A national government ~~would not be bound by~~ copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law.		** A national government could exempt itself from copyright anyway. Even [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars the US government] does not consider itself bound by copyright law in all cases.
	** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?		** A specification is only needed if there is a desire for multiple independent interoperable implementations, i.e., if competition is being encouraged. But what government would on the one hand encourage competition amongst browser vendors and on the other hand prevent those browser vendors from implementing other versions of HTML?
	** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (c.f. China).		** In practice, it would be economically impractical to control the Web by developing a parallel HTML that is similar enough that the W3C spec could be used as a basis, but different enough that it is incompatible with the Web's HTML. In reality, countries use content filtering software to do such control (c.f. China).

Forking - Revision history

Mjs: Let's not make this too personal.

Aryeh Gregor: /* Existing forks of HTML */ Describe some of the forks a bit.

Hixie at 21:22, 2 May 2011

Zcorpan: /* Other forks */

Zcorpan: /* W3C-hosted forks */

Zcorpan: /* W3C-hosted forks */

Zcorpan: /* Other forks */

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking */ Mention Apple making up proprietary features to support iOS instead of forking the spec

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking */ Remove something that's not an argument against the risks of forking, it's an argument about the irrelevance of W3C licensing to the *possibility* of forking.

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking */ Clarify copyright law's effect on governments

Aryeh Gregor: /* Supposed risks of forking / Remove something that's not an argument against the risks of forking, it's an argument about the irrelevance of W3C licensing to the possibility* of forking.