We are a very disparate group here, coming from many different
backgrounds, many with a very particular focus.
Consensus, as you say, is difficult and indeed
impossible. Consensus in a variety of smaller areas seems feasible.
For a more comprehensive approach, there will need to evolve some decision
process with something like a "chief architect".
One of the worst dangers here is that support from a commercial
supplier of browsers will be necessary, and they will be motivated to run away
with early and incomplete approaches.
Maybe the exercise can be organized usefully
Organization is fundamental and I'm sure will, and certainly
must, evolve in unforeseeable ways. The following illustrates one
possibility for a general framework.
As a starting point there seems to be two fundamentally
different camps; both useful, but in quite different ways, but needing
separate areas of development:
* Those who advocate incremental, evolutionary and reasonably
compatible change in a variety of areas.
Here what is needed is a series of topics that can
be easily created and evolved towards some sort of formal recommendation.
Here only partial consensus is needed; e.g., I suspect two, hopefully
complementary, approaches for comments will evolve.
* Those who advocate radical, revolutionary change, albeit with
Here there needs to an outline of topics to be
The latter is more difficult. Separate topics for
objectives, requirements, specifications, design principles, design issues,
document guidelines etc. is an obvious starting point. In the long
run, these can evolve from discussion entries to an area for formal
resolution and public documentation.
... snip ...