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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:28:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4C22B4CB.7030308@cam.ac.uk>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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. [...]
> 
> I would like to see the documents converge.
> [...]
> This could have been done by selecting 
> an entirely different set of text and modifying both documents to match 
> that text.

Sam: Did you perhaps originally mean to say "To fix it in just one spec 
is, in itself, an indication that convergence is *NOT* felt to be an 
important criteria"? It sounds to me that you meant fixing the original 
bug in just one spec leads to divergence (hence indicating that 
convergence was not considered important when performing that edit), 
whereas Ian is interpreting your statement as saying the divergence 
problem should be fixed in just one spec. (I could be misinterpreting 
either/both sides, though.)

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 01:29:14 GMT

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