Re: Request for the WHATWG draft to converge with the W3C draft

Forgot to copy www-archive.  While you are not obligated to do so, I
would like to request that www-archive be copied on any replies.

- Sam Ruby

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> I'm sending this email based on a request from Ian:
>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-June/026896.html
>
> My request is very specifically scoped.  Details can be found at [1]
> and [2].  The short form is that a proposal made by Lachlan Hunt[3]
> was adopted by the W3C WG based on a Call for Consensus[4], and this
> resulted in a widening of the divergence[5] between the WHATWG and W3C
> drafts.
>
> My request is that one of the following three actions be taken (listed
> in order of preference):
>
> (1) that this divergence be eliminated, and that the WHATWG draft be
> updated to reflect the consensus position.
>
> (2) that new information be presented[6] which would cause this
> discussion to be reopened.
>
> (3) that the differences listed in the WHATWG draft be updated in two ways:
> (a) to describe why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge in this
> particular case
> (b) to modify the description of the W3C position to be based on the
> reasons given in Lachlan's proposal
>
> Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-June/026874.html
> [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-June/026876.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html
> [5] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004270.html
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen
>

Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 00:05:08 UTC