- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:39:33 +0100
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 17, 2009, at 17:34 , Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >> I would therefore recommend that: >> - this WG simply ignore the issue; >> - that the team kindly remind the XHTML2 WG that it is expected to >> stick to its charter, doubly so in politically charged areas; >> - if no change happens, that this be dealt with at the AC level >> with easily justified formal objections at the next transition >> request for XHTML2. > > Am I alone in finding this inter-WG squabbling both petty and > irritating ? No, I do too, which is why I propose the above course of action that at least turns to polite indifference. > /If/ there is a problem caused by a conflict between the draft > specifications > of this WG and the XHTML2 WG, then surely the first step should be a > friendly > note from one or both of our co-Chairmen to his or her opposite > number(s) in > the XHTML2 WG, explaining the problem (as perceived by this WG) and > asking > if (a) the XHTML2 WG are aware of the problem, and (b) how they > propose > that it best be addressed. My understanding was that the problem was already raised but not fixed, am I wrong? I don't have access to the Hypertext CG (which would be the proper forum for this interaction) to check. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 16:54:47 UTC