About animation: declarative vs programmative. Long discussions with good arguments in both camps. Often declarative is something which is easier to handle for users with no big skills. HTML is relatively easy, a level of abstraction more is CSS, Javascript is then completly another world.

SMIL Animation (included in SVG) is all about declarative animation, much easier to use than programming the same functionalities.

TR/ doesn’t only contain technical specifications, but also guidelines, notes, primers, etc. It can be indeed misleading sometimes.

I have no problem with specs going into the recommendation stage, silly or not. As a web developer, I can myself decide what implementation I want to make use of. It’s a system that works pretty well.

1. Marquee: The thing that feels bad about this one is that we’re doing things with CSS that could easily be done with js. In my mind, animation is something that is better fitted to be handled in a scripting environment.

2. Old people: I have no problem with what it says, it’s the form of it is really strange. The section that’s supposed to contain recommendations is empty, and everything before that is a literature review. That seems more like a research effort than a recommendation to me.

I agree that it’s a sign of saneness that some of them didn’t go into the recommendation stage :)

1. marquee (liking it or not) will not go away. But that would be better if it was not a tag, then the CSS rules for it. That said it doesn’t mean it will reach Rec stage. This will determine by implementation phase: Candidate Recommendation.

2. Accessibility for Old People is far to be silly, but on this one I’m not sure how to convince you more than you spend time reading the document if not done yet. :)

Indeed some things look silly retrospectively, it’s often why they didn’t go to Rec. but at the time they were topics often worth exploring and which help pushing the limits for future specifications. ;)

I see that as a W3C representative you don’t have any personal opinions about their silliness. Would be interesting to hear them! Thanks for the additional info though, appreciate it!

* HTML+TIME is a Note published mainly written by Microsoft and implemented in IE. The same principles are implemented in SMIL

* Predefined Icons is a *Working Draft* from *1996*. ;) so not a spec.

* Curie is still a *Last Call Working Draft*. The next step should be candidate recommendation calling for implementations. It is a highly debated document. You are welcome to leave comments about it.

* Micropayments in HTML was a Working Draft (1999). The Activity has stopped. The Work didn’t find enough support. You have to imagine a context of this time. The question: How do we finance the business of online services? Advertisements was almost not existent. In France, the Minitel was a network of computer with successful micropayment at the time. Another path has been taken. Though somehow micropayment exists through the Mobile communications for example.

* Same story. 1997

* CSS3 Marquee. In development, still a WD, you are welcome to send your comments to the appropriate mailing list.

* Accessibility for Old People is a very interesting documents. Work from WAI is used by many governments, institutions to define their policies development on accessibility. Many developed countries are having older and older users. Again this is a Working Draft it doesn’t mean it will become a Recommendation, it could end up as a Note.

Basically what you are saying is that W3C has a system of publication with a strong policy of maintenance. It helps give stable references to documents in development. A Document depending on its maturity level, the market, the lack of implementations, etc. will stay a WD, becomes a note or eventually becomes a W3C Recommendation.

Hope it helps to understand.

The funniest thing about SOAP is that you could use it together with Ajax. We need a recommendation spelled Alternate Quality User Attributes or something to make it whole.