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

Re: ISSUE-151: whatwg-references - Decision

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:27:04 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+f+qgjCJuiy=EpmF+D0V=rbMvKzzuD0Qk7RtF4QjfU3mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> 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.


Is there a need to say anything about the WHATWG in the SotD section? I
would prefer nothing be said there.


>
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 14:27:52 UTC

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