- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk>
- Cc: Sylvain Eliade <sylvain@eliade.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Bruce Boughton wrote: > > > > If the HTML WG adopts the draft and me as editor, then the specs would > > evolve in lockstep, literally generated from the same source document. > > This sounds sensible. However, what would happen if the HTML WG were to > change portions significantly from the WHATWG spec and the WHATWG did > not agree? How can you have the two specs generated from the same > document if there is significant (hypothetical) disagreement? Unless the HTML WG changed something in a way that was fundamentally incompatible with the WHATWG's goals (which are currently the same as the HTML WG's goals, so this would require a change of the HTML WG's goals, or a failure to follow our own design principles), the HTML WG decision would just be taken. > Also, if there are two working groups working on one spec, then the > separation of them causes a huge artificial communications barrier. Not really. The way that the WHATWG has been working isn't the way that most people imagine a working group to work. As an editor, I take input for every source I can -- bug databases, blogs, forums, mailing lists, research, lunch conversations, implementation feedback, personal e-mail, you name it -- and use all of that to influence the spec. The WHATWG mailing list is but one of many sources; the creation of the HTML working group here at the W3C merely adds another source of input, as far as I'm concerned. (Assuming that I become the editor, that is. Which I'd be happy to do, but that's up to the group to decide.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 22:27:00 UTC