W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Patches merged or staged for week 50

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 12:08:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vmp__om-a2tNv-Qfh+evVooY9BFeuuvVKR_5xp3Cg-=hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 8 December 2012 11:14, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the relationship with the WHATWG is a special one since they are
> working on the same specification as us. We want to make every effort to
> provide a unified HTML specification to the world.

I  agree with the above in terms of implementation details of implemented

In terms author conformance requirements and advice the W3C spec should
provide what is agreed as the best text by the HTML WG, regardless of what
is in the WHATWG spec.

In terms of new features the HTML 5.1 specification should reflect
decisions made in the HTML WG. Just as the WHATWG spec reflects the
decisions reached via the WHATWG process.

I think that having CFCs for addition of new features to 5.1 would be not
be an undue process burden and would provide the opportunity for initial

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 12:09:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:31 UTC