- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:40:09 +0100
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 26/03/2014 19:14 , Glenn Adams wrote: > * "Work on this specification is also done at the WHATWG > <http://www.whatwg.org/>." > o I find this confusing since what is being worked on in the > WHATWG is more of the nature of an input document to consider > for acceptance, mutatis mutandis, in this specification. I'm > afraid that as stated, this sentence produces more confusion > that it eliminates. Actually I find that this is the simplest description of the work that is also not particularly politically charged. I don't think that anyone who does not know how things actually work will be confused reading that sentence. And people who know how things work are most likely already confused anyway (or more to the point: not in need of this paragraph). > * "within the bounds of the W3C HTML working group charter > <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html>" > o It would be useful to add text to the end of this of the nature > "and W3C Process and Patent Policy" (with appropriate links); Again, I beg to differ. I find the mention of the HTML WG charter extraneous (but it has to stay in because if we remove it some people think it somehow unbinds us — which it doesn't). If the fact that we have include this indication for the wrong reasons means we should also include encompassing ones, then we'll end up making it "the W3C HTML working group charter, the W3C Process, the W3C Patent Policy, applicable law and regulation, dedicated application of rational morality, foundational logic, and the emergent properties of the initial bit-chaos of uncountable dimensions." I am concerned this may open the door to theological disagreement. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 08:40:20 UTC