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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:39:13 +0200
To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.veuqi7sm64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:27:31 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't have an strong opinion about that wording.  What I  
> want is technically identical specs so we have interoperability.  The  
> politics of the wording are of little utility, they seem only to be  
> covering up the elephant in the room.
>
> The W3C HTML5 and WHATWG HTML5 specs need to agree, point for point.
>
> However the WHATWG and W3C HTML WG work this out is less important than  
> that single point.  If anyone disagrees with that, I'd appreciate a  
> serious and sober explanation.

It would be interesting to know why that is important. If the  
specifications have differences and they turn out to be largely ignored  
there is no real problem. If they are not largely ignored and one  
specification has more traction we can try to learn from that. Maybe one  
can imagine certain doom scenarios, but just as with terrorist threats  
they are probably not very realistic.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 10:40:23 GMT

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