- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:34:47 +0200
- To: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 1) A number of individuals within the WHATWG would like to see the W3C no > longer copy and/or work on areas that overlap with ongoing WHATWG efforts. I think that *if* the W3C is going to specify things that do overlap WHATWG efforts, rewriting things to "not copy" is worse than copying, since rewrites are likely to introduce subtle deviations. I think the ideal outcome would be for the W3C normatively reference WHATWG specs such that the normative statement get imported by reference under the PP; see the last sentence of this email. > There also is an interest in limiting the > observable differences between what the WHATWG HTML spec and the W3C HTML > require of both content producers and user agents. Indeed. > 3) We discussed proposals for modularity This seems to contradict the point quoted above about limiting the differences between WHATWG HTML and W3C HTML. > 1) We expect to only provide non-substantive errata for 5.0. Will 5.0 then be marked obsolete as soon as it is known to contain substantive errors? It seems bad to let people read something that has known substantive errors without warning the readers. > 3) In 1Q15, we will identify which specs in the WHATWG the HTML WG would > like to refer to directly, and will schedule a call with the director to > build a plan. Examples of documents that could be referenced by W3C HTML > Work: Fetch, URL, Streams. Cool. If Fetch, URL and Streams become referencable by the W3C, why not WHATWG HTML itself so that the W3C could focus on extension specs? I wonder if this WG could, from time to time, publish a REC that, in addition to boilerplate, just says "This Recommendation normatively references the snapshot of WHATWG HTML dated yyyy-mm-dd as if its normative statements were included herein." (Where yyyy-mm-dd is enough in the past for Members to have time to be comfortable. The current track record suggests this doesn't need to be more than a year in the past. I suppose continuing the statement with "except for X, Y and Z" would still be better than the W3C publishing a different document or, worse, a set of modularized documents and leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out the diffs.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Friday, 28 November 2014 08:35:16 UTC