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

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:46:33 +0100
Message-ID: <46269FC9.4020202@cam.ac.uk>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

>> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5  
>> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG effort
> 
> Chris and I are delighted to have Ian Hickson as one of the editors,
> but not satisfied with having him as the only editor. We're continuing
> to recruit co-editors.

Dan, can you elaborate on this a little? Do you have some reason for 
believing that multiple editors will work better than a single editor? 
How do you see them interacting (e.g. each working on a subset of the 
spec; every editor working on the whole spec and reviewing each other's 
modifications before they are committed; etc.)?

(Note that I don't, a priori, have a problem with multiple editors but I 
am interested to understand the rationale behind the chairs /requiring/ 
multiple editors)

-- 
"Instructions to follow very carefully.
Go to Tesco's.  Go to the coffee aisle.  Look at the instant coffee. 
Notice that Kenco now comes in refil packs.  Admire the tray on the 
shelf.  It's exquiste corrugated boxiness. The way how it didn't get 
crushed on its long journey from the factory. Now pick up a refil bag. 
Admire the antioxidant claim.  Gaze in awe at the environmental claims 
written on the back of the refil bag.  Start stroking it gently, its my 
packaging precious, all mine....  Be thankful that Amy has only given 
you the highlights of the reasons why that bag is so brilliant."
-- ajs
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 22:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC