- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:27:44 +0200
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
* Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: >I find this a very disturbing statement. Taken at face >value, it appears to say "We are going to adopt WHATWG HTML5 >as the starting point whether you like it or not. If you >don't like it, your only option is to propose changes to >WHATWG HTML5 to make its adoption as the starting point >acceptable to you. You do not have the option of saying >simply "No, I think that WHATWG HTML5 is fundamentally >flawed and is totally unsuitable as a starting point". If you read the survey you will find that this is not at all what is being proposed, the question is whether the HTML Working Group should "adopt these documents as [their] basis for review". The documents do have some informative value, one should not be concerned about the group reviewing them. As for the formal objection, the purpose of the requirement is to ensure that critisism is constructive, you could for example say the group should rather use the HTML 4 specification as basis for review. I take it from the way the survey is organized and from the responses, opinions in the HTML Working Group about what is being decided there will vary from "Okay, let's talk about some of the WHATWG proposals" to "W3C will simply publish whatever WHATWG puts forward". This seems already apparent from the text you quoted, to me "basis for review" and "starting point" are entirely different things, while others see no difference that's worth mentioning; but perhaps they established the context more carefully outside the survey. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:27:47 UTC