W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:36:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3BF1EA.1070805@nokia.com>
To: ext Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>> Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
>>> specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
>>> Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I
>>> can tell. This undermines and is disrespectful the work of the HTML
>>> Working Group. Unless the WebApps comes up with a set of good reasons of
>>> why this is done and convince the HTML Working Group, those references
>>> must be changed in order to publish the documents properly and respect
>>> the work of the HTML Working Group,
>> Philippe,
>>
>> Re the specific case of the Progress Events spec - when it was last
>> published it included non-normative references to both version of HTML:
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-events/#references
>>
>> May we do that again? (I interpret that to mean the W3C has a fixed
>> version of HTML and the WHATWG has a tip-of-the-tree version of HTML and
>> as such, I don't think it  'disses the HTMLWG nor the W3C.)
> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
> does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
> in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group.

I agree with the requirement for a single normative reference for HTML 
and that it should be the HTMLWG's version.

However, I don't see any particular harm with including *non-normative* 
references to both given the reality is there are two versions of HTML 
serving two different organizations.

It seems somewhat myopic for the "HTMLWG" to pretend there is no other  
version of HTML (at least within the context of the informational 
reference in the PE spec) so I respectfully disagree including both 
references is "ditching" the W3C's version.

-AB

> See
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#how-do-the-whatwg-and-w3c-specifications-differ?
>
> This list keeps growing.
>
> I don't think it's appropriate for one Working Group to ditch the work
> of an other.
>
> Philippe
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 13:36:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT