- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:13:37 +0300
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:05, Robert Burns wrote: > On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:48 +0200, Robert Burns >> <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:32:51 +0200, Robert Burns >>>> <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >>>>> The only value for this differences document currently is to >>>>> help drive the decision making of this WG. >>>> >>>> It's to help people outside this WG who don't have time to read >>>> all of HTML 5 or follow this mailing list to see what the >>>> differences are and comment on them. It gives them the ability >>>> to review the document as well and it seems to be helping >>>> members of this WG as well. (It's also very much non-normative >>>> and not binding in any way.) >>> >>> People outside the WG can read about the differences here: >>> >>> <http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4> >> >> Correct, they could. However, it seems that when the W3C does >> something it gets much wider exposure. For instance, the above >> wiki page appeared on maybe a single blog while the editor draft I >> wrote appeared on hundreds. Having more exposure is very important >> I think. > > Except premature exposure can be a very bad thing. We're not ready > yet. If you are concerned about public perception, why would you prefer the appearance that in order to find out what is going on, people should go see the WHATWG stuff instead of the W3C stuff? (Moreover, earlier it seemed that even participants to this WG didn't find the cited WHATWG wiki page sufficient to inform themselves.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:13:58 UTC