W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > March 2014

Re: ISSUE-151: whatwg-references - Decision

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:40:09 +0100
Message-ID: <5333E3E9.1090100@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:26 UTC