- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:02:37 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > Sounds like Dan is satisfied with Ian's suggestion, but prefers retaining a specific section reference. Does anyone else have objections to Ian's language? Does anyone have strong feelings one way or the other on the section reference? > > If no one objects or suggests further alternatives in a day or two, then I'd recommend to the editor to put the proposed language in the spec so we can see it in context. Then we can do a CfC for amicable resolution if it seems agreeable. Adding a paragraph that basically says this spec is clueless about overall Web technology (beyond the internal mechanisms of a general purpose browser) will not satisfy my objection. As long as the spec is called HTML, I expect it to define HTML and be defined in the same terms as the rest of Web architecture. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 06:03:08 UTC