W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Why "Platform Core" and "HTML5" are in the same spec

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:00:22 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F9BE9494-DEE0-47A6-93A1-1220E2C52FD6@oracle.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

This pretty much sounds like a "thanks but no thanks", doesn't it. I  
don't know if I can learn this dance or understand how the WG wants to  
move forward its work.


On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> ... If I mentioned an editor for the SQL-related parts I was  
>>>> probably talking about an editor for the SQL language subset that  
>>>> the database section will eventually need to require for  
>>>> interoperability, as opposed to the database and storage section  
>>>> (which as noted, is mostly done already). ...
>>> So these would be in different documents? Me confused.
>> I expect when there are fewer more pressing matters (like the  
>> thousands of outstabding e-mails of feedback) that we can split out  
>> the storage section into its own document much like the workers  
>> section, and the "Web SQL" definition can live there. Or it could  
>> be is own spec. I don't really mind. It's mostly academic at this  
>> point.
> Hu?
> My impression was that we have a volunteer -- Nikunj -- and you just  
> turned down his offer. How is that academic?
>>> That sounds backwards to me. How is the second implementation  
>>> supposed to come into existence then? Why not specify, implements,  
>>> test, and re-iterate that process?
>> Sure, if someone wants to volunteer and wants to do it that way  
>> instead, then that's fine by me too. So long as the implementors  
>> are on board and we end up with interoperable implementations, I  
>> don't really care how it's done.
> Aha. We have a volunteer, as far as I understand, and judging from  
> his email address, a likely competent one. Why would implementors be  
> not on board, if their feedback is treated as it should?
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 23:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC