- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:33:42 -0400
- To: deres <deres@o2.pl>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
deres wrote: >> - that the W3C HTML Working Group adops the WHAT Working Group's >> HTML5 as the starting point for further HTML development > > I don't think that is good idea. I think WHAT Working Group's HTML5 > should be [audited] and only some [parts] of it [should] be put to > W3C draft. I don't think people are implying that the WHATWG specifications shouldn't be audited. I think the idea is that it would be faster to start with WHATWG content and audit _out_ the parts that don't make sense to the HTML WG rather than starting with next to nothing and having each little piece of each WHATWG spec audited _in_. (In theory, we could start with HTML 4.01, but as others have stated, HTML 4.01 is extremely vague and ambiguous, and a nightmare to implement. It may still be a valuable source to draw upon in some situations, though.) >> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5 >> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG effort > > why not someone new? Someone who didn't engage in "old" HTML5. Assuming we use the WHATWG work as a starting point, we'll need Ian as editor if we want to avoid a long delay while another editor comes up to speed. Ian will be maintaining a superset of the specification anyways in the WHATWG, so having another editor would result in duplicated effort. It doesn't hurt that Ian has a rather impressive resume either.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 01:32:17 UTC