- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0100
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Simon Pieters wrote:
> I don't see any reason to rush with removing it from the draft until
> it's in another spec. Opera is interested in implementing it so we'd
> rather have it specced somewhere than not specced.
>
> Also, having it included in the WHATWG version but not in the W3C
> version could only lead to confusion, so I don't see that as desirable
> either.
I see any situation where the WHATWG and HTMLWG versions of the spec
diverge as strongly undesirable. The potential for confusion, both in
the small ("You said foo was in section 2.8.3 but I can;'t find it") and
in the large ("why have the WHATWG forked the HTML 5 spec?") seems too
great.
In cases like this where the completion of an action cannot occur on
schedule for some reason, I suggest we either just demote the issue to
RAISED or invent some new flag like "BLOCKED" meaning "the issue cannot
be resolved until some external condition X occurs", where X must be
specified and could be something like "An ID is written for the feature
in the IETF" or "Hixie reaches the point in his editing cycle that the
spec can be updated").
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 15:41:22 UTC