- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:52:56 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? > > If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept). Agreed, but no one has come up with such need so far. > > What > > does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? > > Egos aside, it should not mean anything… one has green headings, the other has blue ones. In the ideal world, it should not, but the fact that we're having this exact discussion indicates there is meaning behind. For example, Ian pointed out earlier that "The W3C one has a growing list of intentional errors.". > > 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. > > > > I don't think it's appropriate for one Working Group to ditch the work > > of an other. > > Both the W3C and WHATWG have an equal and legitimate authoritative claim over the content of the HTML specification (with real authoritative legitimacy being determined by which version actually gets implemented and by who). > > It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as to which spec they cite regardless of the reason. And one of the role of the W3C staff is to ensure proper coordination between the various Working Groups at the W3C. I'm pointing out we are being inconsistent, Philippe
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 15:53:04 UTC