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 09:42:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cUCk8syh3_gz+RYB5og8if4PdDGpNCND=z5p6pxRifZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1 I don't have any issue with the text as written, although I am sure it
> could be improved, but such improvement would be imperceptible to the vast
> majority of readers and therefore not worth wasting cycles on.
>

I would venture that the readers that matter in the current context are W3C
Members who will respond to calls for PR. If a simple improvement will
satisfy the stated concern, then it's worth making the effort.


>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 27 March 2014 15:31, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> On 27/03/2014 15:27 , Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a need to say anything about the WHATWG in the SotD section? I
>>> would prefer nothing be said there.
>>>
>>
>> The WHATWG is the reason we have this document today and continues to be
>> the major driving force behind it. Not at the very least mentioning it
>> would be, in my opinion, very much disingenuous.
>>
>> In the interest of actually shipping, can we please stay away from
>> preferences and stick to things that cause actual problems? I, and I
>> believe the other editors, would be very thankful.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 15:42:58 UTC

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