W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2010

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:41:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2576E7.9020103@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: annevk@opera.com, brendan@mozilla.com, dbaron@mozilla.com, hyatt@apple.com, dean.edwards@gmail.com, howcome@opera.com, jst@mozilla.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 06/25/2010 08:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> The short form is that a proposal made by Lachlan Hunt was adopted by
>> the W3C WG based on a Call for Consensus, and this resulted in a
>> widening of the divergence between the WHATWG and W3C drafts.
>
> Could you explain what is wrong with the example in the WHATWG draft that
> you would like removed?

Lachlan's change proposal adequately described what was wrong with the 
example.

I provided three options, and listed my order of preference.  If the 
example is to be retained, and this is done without presenting any new 
information that would merit reopening the decision, then my request is 
that the differences indicated why the WHATWG felt it necessary to 
diverge, and that the description reflect the rationale provided by Lachlan.

But again, I wish to stress that from my perspective, this is the least 
preferable option.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 03:42:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:31 GMT