W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

RE: DOM Parsing and Serialization: which W3C WG? [Was: Re: ISSUE-198: innerHTML-patent-policy - Chairs Solicit Proposals]

From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:40:34 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "Ms2ger @ Mozilla" <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5EA8F3A4B854B4386C8C7AEDA1A905016AE8A9B@TK5EX14MBXC222.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:16 PM
> 
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
> > During WebApps' 31-Oct-2010 TPAC meeting, the group agreed [1] DOM
> > Parsing and Serialization [2] was in scope and Chaals added it as an explicit
> > deliverable in the Draft charter that will soon be submitted to the AC for
> > approval.
> >
> > During that meeting Ms2ger expressed some interest in editing it in W3C
> > space. Ms2ger - would you please clarify your intent with this spec vis--vis
> > the W3C?
> >
> > Additionally, Doug agreed to "ask the SVG WG for editors". Doug - what is
> > the status of this action?
> >
> > Anyhow, I don't have a strong opinion of which WG should take the lead
> > here and if someone does, please speak up.
> 
> Great, if the draft becomes a Web Apps deliverable, that should greatly
> simplify this situation. I don't personally think it needs to be an HTML WG
> draft, and I suspect the Change Proposal author would accept a Web Apps
> draft as well, even though the Change Proposal specifies HTML WG.

I'd prefer to publish this in the HTML WG since that's where these APIs originated, but I'm open to discussion.

If needed, Microsoft can provide an editor.

-Tony
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 19:41:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC