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

Re: ISSUE-151: whatwg-references - Decision

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:48:37 -0400
Message-ID: <53344855.3080807@intertwingly.net>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 03/27/2014 11:36 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org
> <mailto: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.
> Well, you dismissed my claim of potential confusion, so I offered a way
> out (remove WHATWG references). I believe the current language is an
> actual problem, so I'll file a bug report (shortly) to that effect with
> additional details.

I'll note that removal of all WHATWG references is not likely to achieve 
unanimity; and I will further note that stating your justification in 
terms of *potential* confusion (your word, not mine) is not a strong 

I encourage you to work towards a consensus position and/or demonstrate 
an actual problem.

>     --
>     Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 15:49:08 UTC

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