W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] paint sources

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:04:41 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202280003050.10359@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 06/02/12 10:44, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> > 
> > It's only a problem insofar as I should link specifically to the 
> > WHATWG spec.  Done.
> 
> Well, should we really? Please, this is not a religious war but a 
> serious question about the normative state of a document that never 
> stabilizes. Should the only version of "html" we reference normatively 
> be HTML WG's instead?

The WHATWG one is more stable than HTML4 (as in, it's more precise, more 
accurate, and will need less change over time to reach its ideal state). 

And it's a standard, it says so at the top. :-)

(The W3C version is technically _less_ stable than the WHATWG one, since 
it has more changes made to it than the WHATWG one.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 00:06:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT