Re: Request to Revert revision 1.4525

Hi John,

Reverting the revision that Sam mentioned would get rid of the warning box that links to the WHATWG draft as the "current editor's draft" and the style rule that greys out all the text of the spec. I believe this would address your concerns.

Regards,
Maciej

On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:57 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote
> >
> > Ian, the chairs have determined that the following change is likely to
> > reduce rather than increase consensus, and therefore per our
> > agreement[1] are requesting a speedy revert of the following change
> > pending resolution of the "publishing problem":
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-
> > commits/2010Oct/0332.html
>  
> (Apologies for the HTML-rich email and embedded image – a screen capture of http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ showing the current advisory box and a link to the WHATWG document)
>  
> <image003.jpg>
>  
> Sam,
>  
> With all due respect, I think that the real issue is that currently the W3C Editors Draft is “missing in action” and is instead pointing to the now quite-out-of-sync WHATWG document, which has been developed by a process that many disagree with (the so-called benevolent dictator). Asking Ian to roll back to an earlier version will not, I think, solve this larger problem: it’s not which version is being presented in so much as *whose* version is being presented. Since the WHATWG document references content that has not reached consensus status at the W3C (Microdata and WebSRT being 2 that I am personally aware of) it is unconscionable to have the W3C pointing to this non-W3C document as “the current Editor’s Draft”. It isn’t, it will never be, and I for one find it troubling that it is being suggested as such.
>  
> The correct solution should be that the link in the above advisory note that the current Editor Draft is off-line (“for technical reasons” or whatever) and that interested parties should perhaps reference http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ in the interim (a document that for most practical reasons is ‘good enough’). Rolling back something that is not publically available does not solve this problem.
>  
> Thank you
>  
> JF
>  
>