W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Formally Object to Referencing WhatWG within the W3C HTML5 specification

From: T.J. Crowder <tj@crowdersoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:28:47 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUeFRVZjQvlDDZmSIgz4AiOrP0ijTH1C36bc-r@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
HI Bijan,

On 10 June 2010 10:16, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 10 Jun 2010, at 07:11, T.J. Crowder wrote:
>
>> The W3C version needs to either be the spec, or not, and if it is it needs
>> not to be referring back to a different document also claiming to be an
>> HTML5 specification (whether or not it follows that with "with additions").
>
>
> But...are you confused now? It seems that the confusion is resolvable.
>

Less so, because I'm a bit of an anorak and I made it my business to find
out what the distinction was. Most people will not make that effort and so
will find a spec that looks official and say, "right, here it is, I'll use
that." And so start assuming that some of the WHATWG additions are part of
the mainline effort. And for me, yes, direct inclusion vs. diffing *is* the
rubicon, it's what creates the confusion.

Separately, again, the W3C version really must not be calling out to the
WHATWG version; that's clearly an inverted relationship.

I think I've expressed my position adequately and so will back off this
conversation; people will either agree or not; or more likely, not care --
it's not as though my position is significant, in the greater sheme of this
effort. :-)

Best,
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 09:29:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT