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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:28:58 -0700
Message-ID: <71CD410348514EEDBB54E419F8617CD8@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "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>

Subject: Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

>> 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 status quo is that they aren't identical, but they're 
> compatible.

Compatible where intersecting while one might be more advanced or even 
experimental but the end goal is authoring and delivery convergance at 
technically appropriate times.

> Each feature either has identical conformance requirements,

Right, each feature shared by both specs has the same conformance 
requirements.

> if it's in both the W3C and WHATWG copies; or is in only the WHATWG 
> copy.

In the same light, might there also be features in the W3C spec that 
do not appear in WHATWG?

> So having two specs might cause confusion or other problems, but 
> it's not an interoperability concern right now.

The terminal and ever-expanding goals of each normative/informative 
item and any differences should be explained to the using public in 
explicit detail.

Thanks to All and Best Regards,
Joe
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 17:29:40 GMT

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