- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:42:41 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 29 janv. 2009 à 11:28, David Singer a écrit : > I didn't say "all others", perhaps it should have been "some > others" (more than just Haakon). Were you responding thinking I > said "all others"? I'm sorry if it was unclear... Thanks for clarifying. Le 29 janv. 2009 à 11:33, Boris Zbarsky a écrit : > I appreciate your position on the spec as it stands, but it's not > clear to me from your mail whether you actually disagree with the > above opinion. As far as I can tell you support three separate > normative non-overlapping specifications, not multiple normative > specifications covering the same ground. 1. Having been involved in the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines, my ideal scenario would be separate normative non-overlapping specifications, but indeed some people are not ready to give up the HTML 5 Markup part of the HTML 5 original document. 2. About the First Public Working Draft, A working draft is a draft, has a lot of issues, conflicts, etc. It's normal. It is also an attempt to see if we can organize in a different way the technology. I might be wrong but the reactions I read from people being afraid of having normative statements in HTML 5 Markup document seems to be fear of losing control on HTML 5 original spec. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 16:43:14 UTC