W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:37:24 -0500
Message-ID: <474EF8D4.5070300@us.ibm.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Of course, it would be easier to publish the spec right
>> away if the spec took a much more conservative position on
>> issues such as videoaudio, immediate-mode-graphics, and
>> offline-applications-sql.
>>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2
> I think those areas are possibly the most important areas of the 
> specification. If we removed them, we would be making ourselves 
> irrelevant, as the community would instead refer to the WHATWG HTML5 draft 
> for the definitions of those features

The way you portray this issue is a bit too binary for my tastes.

Why is "the" (as in one and only) specification the only document in 
which this information can make it onto a W3C site?  I've seen several 
specifications which are spread across volumes.  Can't different volume 
in a series be in different states at any given time?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 17:37:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:24 UTC