W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-1 PINGUI / ISSUE-2 PINGPOST Change Proposal to remove @ping from HTML5

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:37:28 -0800
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8AA5DB64-D341-4B23-8DFF-AAF6CD44BF95@gbiv.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> A clarification on this: it's my understanding that the ping attribute will likely remain in the WHATWG's extended spec, which also includes other "future development" features that may be proposed for future versions of HTML, such as the <device> element. I do not expect anyone will have a problem with this, but I wanted to make this clear so there is no misunderstanding.
>> 
>> As long as the WHATWG specification of extensions to HTML5 is
>> titled and scoped as extensions to HTML5 (and not as HTML5 itself),
>> then I won't have any problems with it.
> 
> The WHATWG drafts that I expect would contain this material are:
> 
> "HTML5 (including next generation additions still in development)"
>  (This includes the contents of W3C HTML5, plus some other W3C drafts , plus some material for future development)
> 
> "Web Applications 1.0"
>  (This includes everything that's in the above draft plus the contents of some other W3C drafts plus probably even more stuff.
> 
> While the first name strikes me as a little odd (how can it be version 5, and yet also include next generation additions?) I would hope we can resolve these two issues without having to convince the WHATWG to retitle any of their documents.

It isn't just "a little odd" -- it is fundamentally dishonest
and deceptive, a deliberate rejection of W3C decision-making
authority over HTML, and quite childish.  Why anyone would want
to associate with such behavior is beyond my understanding.

A fix to that situation is something I would expect the chairs
to impose, even if it is as trivial as a title change.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 08:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC