- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:05:33 +0100
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 11 Apr 2007, at 13:49, Laurens Holst wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon schreef: >>> You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the >>> step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative >>> ways to move forward. >> >> I'm equally interested to hear about alternatives: plenty of >> people have already quite clearly stated that starting from HTML >> 4.01 is near unworkable, due to how vague it is, and nobody has >> put forward any other possible starting point. > > As this is the second time I hear someone say that no alternatives > have been offered, I’d like to refer to my earlier message where I > suggested two other approaches: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0085.html > > I think both are based on the idea of cutting up the WHATWG’s specs > a little, the first doing a quick review for patents and then > copying over everything that’s not ‘dangerous’ and keeping the > remainder in a separate ‘sandbox’ for more in-depth review; the > second cutting up the spec in smaller ‘units’ that can be discussed > and integrated into the specification one by one. In my view these are really just the same, they're both using the WHATWG's specs as a starting point (albeit probably with some changes). - Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 13:05:41 UTC