Apple gets higher profile in HTML standardization

An Apple manager has become a co-chairman of the group standardizing HTML, giving the company a higher-profile role in a crucial time for development of the language used to build Web pages.

The World Wide Web Consortium's HTML Working Group had been led by IBM's Sam Ruby and Microsoft's Chris Wilson. Wilson has stepped down and is being replaced by two others, Paul Cotton, who manages Microsoft's Web services standards team, and Maciej Stachowiak, who manages Apple's WebKit WebApps team, according to an e-mail announcement by W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee.

"Why three co-Chairs?" Berners-Lee asked in the note. "Clearly, there is a lot of work to do. Sam, Paul, and Maciej bring particular skills to the job (whether it is Maciej's experience with WebKit or Paul's with Working Group processes)."

Indeed, the two new co-chairs arrive during a crucial time. The W3C stopped developing HTML with version 4.01 in 1999, focusing instead on a very different standard called XHTML 2.0 that ultimately met its official demise in July. Browser makers, meanwhile, went their own way with a group called WHATWG, short for Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group.

WHATWG's work ultimately grew into HTML 5 as the W3C embraced HyperText Markup Language once again. It's got a number of features to make the Web a better foundation not just for static Web pages but also for more interactive Web applications. For example, one Web storage lets Web-based applications store data on a computer, helping Web applications work even when a network connection isn't available.

The standardization process is complicated, though, with a complex back-and-forth between the standards group and browser makers trying new features on their own.

Meanwhile, Microsoft only began HTML 5 discussion in earnest earlier this month.

And Aaron Boodman, a programmer involved with Google's Chrome browser, suggested on the HTML 5 mailing list, "I would like to propose that we get rid of the concepts of 'versions' altogether from HTML. In reality, nobody supports all of HTML 5...Instead of insisting that a particular version of HTML is a monolithic unit that must be implemented in its entirety, we could have each feature (or logical group of features) spun off into its own small spec."

[fazalmajid]

Don't forget the editor of the spec, Ian Hickson, who works for Google, and who is the author of the well-known Acid2 and Acid3 compliance tests.

Some people have accused him (and the HTML5 process in general) of being biased towards large companies. It's mostly sour grapes because they couldn't get their favorite pet feature included in the spec.

[D.G.Tal]

I like this concept of dropping the version on HTML 5 and have it feature based. Hmm, what kind of browser would like to have? HTML Basic, HTML Premium, HTML Business or HTML Ultimate Edition.

[S R]

OK, how does the title relate to the story again? There are three co-chairs, one from MSFT and one from AAPL are newly added. How does this imply "Apple gets higher profile in HTML standardization"?

I would like to hear Stephen's convoluted logic. Thanks.

[docster87]

Apple was NOT represented as a co-chair, and NOW Apple has a person as a co-chair. Apple now has a higher profile than Apple had a week ago.

Or at least that is what I read. Not saying that Apple is beating the crap out of other companies, just that "Apple gets higher profile in HTML standardization" than what Apple had.

[Shankland]

My convoluted logic is as follows:

Co-chairs before:
IBM and Microsoft

Co-chairs after:
IBM and Microsoft and Apple

[S R]

Aha.. my bad. I thought MSFT and AAPL were newly added; missed that there was MSFT already. Sorry about it.

[forever4now]

I think it is a great idea, to divide HTML5 into functional modules.
e.g.
HTML5: Video
HTML5: Audio
HTML5: Canvas
HTML5: ???

Then, the features/modules could be prioritized, based on market needs/wants, and ratified quickly, rather than trying to ratify everything together.

Perhaps, even an HTML5 "acid" test could be developed and run, to generate a list of supported functionality, for each browser. Tech blogs could use this tool, to generate browser comparison tables.

[rsewill]

I think I liked it better when Microsoft simply dictated standards. If IE needed it then that is what everyone used.

[derekread]

It still makes sense to have a major version for any standard to me. It makes it possible to say "my browser is compliant with version X". Breaking any standard down into modules is fine (that work was already basically done with XHTML), but we still need a version so people can talk about it.

It makes it possible to say "my browser supports feature X from HTML version X", or "my browser supports 8/9 of the modules in HTML version X".

Versioning is so important (to many things, including standards, software, books, MP3 players, even cars) that I can't even imagine how it would make sense to talk about "HTML" without referencing the version. Perhaps by using the release date (like we do for cars)? But that's just another way to version something.