W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: The HTMLWG and WHATWG (Was: Default (informal) Style Sheet)

From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:06:51 +0200
Message-ID: <46125F7B.1010104@dreamlab.net>
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

The issue I've seen it that one group comes to 
consensus, passes it over to the other group, the 
other group starts discussion again, comes to a 
new consensus that may be different, passes it 
back to the first group, the first group that 
already reached consensus re-starts discussion, 
comes to a different consensus, passes it over...

Alternatively, one group comes to consensus, 
passes it over to the other group saying "no 
changes possible, just sign off please" to avoid 
endless loops as described before.

Clearly, both approaches aren't optimal. This is 
an organizational problem that is completely 
independent from whether or not the liaison person 
between the groups or joint editor is doing a 
great job or not, nor am I suggesting that 
isolation is therefore a great idea.

- Sebastian

Murray Maloney schrieb:
> 
> 
> [...]
>> There are members of the WHATWG who do not _want_ to contribute via the
>> HTML WG, just like there are members of the HTML WG who do not want to
>> contribute via the WHATWG, and members who don't want to contribute in
>> either list (e.g. who prefer forums, or don't care about standards
>> development per se and would rather stay in their part of the world and
>> have us go to them). We have to cater for all these people, otherwise our
>> specification won't be good for them, and thus our spec won't be as 
>> good a
>> step forward for humanity as it otherwise could be.
>> -- 
>> Ian Hickson
> 
> +1
> 
> Murray Maloney
> murray@muzmo.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 14:07:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:52 GMT