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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:44:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4C22AA51.5020400@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06/23/2010 08:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 06/22/2010 04:06 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I understand that Ian fixed a bug.  What I don't understand (and the
>>>> context here is the topic of convergence) is why Ian agreed to fix that
>>>> bug, but only in the W3C copy of the spec.
>>>
>>> I made the change only in the W3C version because I believe it's a bad
>>> change, but did not believe it was bad enough to argue against.
>>>
>>>> Either there is a problem with it or there is not. To fix it in just
>>>> one spec is, in itself, an indication that convergence is felt to be
>>>> an important criteria.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Since I feel, as you do, that convergence is an important
>>> criteria, I've done as you suggest and reverted the change from the
>>> W3C copy.
>>
>> Note: while I suggested convergence, I neither suggested reversion from
>> the W3C draft or incorporation into the WHATWG draft.
>
> If that isn't exactly what you were suggesting above when suggesting that
> just one spec should be changed, then I really have no idea what it is you
> were suggesting. If you could be clearer in these requests that would be
> most helpful.

I would like to see the documents converge.

This could have been accomplished via changing the WHATWG draft to match 
the W3C draft.  This could have been accomplished by modifying the W3C 
draft to match the WHATWG draft.  This could have been done by selecting 
an entirely different set of text and modifying both documents to match 
that text.

Any of the above would have made the documents converge.  I did not 
specify which of the above options.

You apparently chose to revert the W3C change.

>> In any case, please attend to the resolution of bug 9241 as the previous
>> resolution no longer matches the editor's decision.
>
> I am now at a loss as to what you want me to do.

I want you to RESOLVE bug 9241.  By reverting the change, the prior 
resolution was no longer accurate.  If it is your intent to not make any 
changes in response to the bug report, indicate such in your resolution. 
  If it is your intent to make a change, and it is your intent to have 
the drafts converge, please try to address the bug in a way that can be 
applied equally to both drafts.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 00:44:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT