- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:49:31 +0100
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Elliott Sprehn wrote: > I know this is mentioned in the last paragraph of this quoted email, but > I believe it also is worth point out because I've gotten the feeling > from reading emails on this list and from IRC conversation that some > people who were involved in the WHATWG feel as if changing anything or > going a different route would be wrong since their effort on that spec > must be the "right" solution. I have no idea if you have anything I said in mind but since I have explicitly mentioned reading the WHATWG mailing list archives when commenting on a feature, you might have. So, to be explicit, neither I nor, to my knowledge, anyone else has ever suggested that the WHATWG work should be rubberstamped. However, assuming we take that document as our starting point, the history of our specification is, initially at least, the history of the WHATWG effort. Therefore I believe that, before making a proposal, it is polite to make a search of the WHATWG archive for relevant discussion (in the same way that it is polite for new members to do so with this group's archive). That way people do not have to spend their time repeating the reasoning behind well-documented design decisions, leaving our discourse focussed on actual weaknesses and omissions in the specification. Of course this is not meant to imply that if you find a design decision you disagree with you should keep quiet about it; I merely mean that it's in everyone's best interest if discussion is as informed as possible and that the WHATWG mailing list archives are an important source of information about why certain things are the way they are. >> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5 >> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG effort > > This seems okay. I do have one concern regarding his comments that the > WHATWG will continue development of their spec separately. Others have > already made comments that "Hixie's time would be better spent..." and > it seems that if his time is better spent doing anything its working on > this spec and not the WHAT WG spec since that's going to be largely a > redundant task. I think the word "separately" here is misleading. I believe that Hixie has said that if he edits both specs he will probably generate the pair from the same source document, adding different branding. That has been done before with e.g. the XBL 2.0 spec. -- "Instructions to follow very carefully. Go to Tesco's. Go to the coffee aisle. Look at the instant coffee. Notice that Kenco now comes in refil packs. Admire the tray on the shelf. It's exquiste corrugated boxiness. The way how it didn't get crushed on its long journey from the factory. Now pick up a refil bag. Admire the antioxidant claim. Gaze in awe at the environmental claims written on the back of the refil bag. Start stroking it gently, its my packaging precious, all mine.... Be thankful that Amy has only given you the highlights of the reasons why that bag is so brilliant." -- ajs
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 22:49:39 UTC