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

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:22:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1108051503430.14637@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:32 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > >
> > > 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. 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.
> > 
> > This is exactly _why_ we should reference the WHATWG copy rather than 
> > the W3C one. The W3C one has a growing list of intentional errors.
> 
> They're not errors, they're decision by the Working Group.

They're errors. Some of the text in the HTML WG specs is actually 
self-contradictory, other parts of it are gramatically incorrect, there 
are decisions that contradict 10-15 years of accessibility advocacy, and 
there's text that misuses terms as defined in the spec itself.

In an earlier e-mail you wrote:

> This undermines and is disrespectful the work of the HTML Working Group.

Respect is earned.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 15:22:45 GMT

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