I don't understand Shelley (The author of the submitted post). Shelley seems to constantly complain about the work that has been done in the WHATWG, and in particular Ian Hickson's work as editor. Shelley seems to like to use W3C process (like the format objection that is mentioned in the post) to slow things down or drown debate in process.
"Though frequently contentious, and overly bureaucratic at times, the W3C effort is the only effort where people other than Ian Hickson may have a say about what is, or is not, in the HTML5 specification. "
This is just wrong. The WHATWG is actually the easiest way to get your ideas considered in HTML 5. This is because all feedback sent to the public WHATWG mailing list is considered and replied to by the editor. Anyone can join the list. Try joining the 'public' HTML W3C mailing list some time.
"Just as important, the W3C provides the legal stability that allows all of the browser companies to freely, and safely, participate."
Funny, browser vendors seemed to do just fine implementing and contributing to HTML 5 while the W3C was busy XHTMLing there way to obsolescence.
The W3C public mailing is currently full of debate about how the WHATWG specification dares to exist alongside the W3C specification. The W3C spec is based on the WHATWG spec and future development continues in the WHATWG spec. Even if that spec was removed I'm sure someone else will start a new spec for new enhancements to HTML that HTML users and implementers agree on. That might as well continue to be the WHATWG spec as far as I can see.
What really seems to be happening is a few people on the W3C HTML list don't like the amount of influence the browser vendors and WHATWG are having on the direction of HTML. They've lost control of the what goes on in HTML and are trying to go back to the approach of large, never implemented, specs where no two implementations work the same.
It seems to me that the 'benevolent dictator' approach of the WHATWG development of HTML 5 has been much more successful in getting browsers to implement new features than the 'design by committee - but only those who pay to join' approach of the W3C that the original submission's author wants.
Funny, browser vendors seemed to do just fine implementing
and contributing to HTML 5 while the W3C was busy XHTMLing
there way to obsolescence.
Exactly. Let's not forget that (in)activity (in broad sense) of W3C is one of the reasons we have WHATWG in the first place. And my gut feeling is that in any serious disagreement browser vendors will go with WHATWG, because that's where the action is.
Having perused the mailing list discussion it seems clear to me that certain entities within the W3C HTML WG (including Apple[1]) are now seeking to emphasise emerging differences (however slight or hard-won) between the W3C draft of HTML5 and the WHATWG draft of HTML. Meanwhile Mozilla and Opera have remained quiet. The timing of this debate is effective because HTML5 has recently hit the mainstream as a buzzword and people unaware of its development history will instinctively refer to the W3C.
While wresting control of the spec from WHATWG may be a worthwhile end for some in the W3C, one has to wonder what Apple could gain from insisting that only 'Portions of this specification are also part of a specification published by the WHATWG'[1], and thereby marginalising the group which is responsible for the spec's very existence and of which Apple is a prominent member.
The post you cite was sent on behalf of the three W3C HTML Working Group Chairs. While I, the person who happened to send it through my email client, happen to work for Apple, that does not make it the official opinion of Apple in any way.
