Re: <iframe doc="">

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> >> The use case I think is most important for @sandbox is advertising, as
> >> discussed in some of my earlier emails to the whatwg list.  Apologies
> >> for splitting the discussion over multiple lists.  I know it can be
> >> hard to follow if you're not subscribed to all of them.
> >
> > It would help if you provide links to these discussions?
>
> There was an extensive discussion.  You might start with the threads
> linked from this page:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=barth+sandbox+whatwg
>
> > No, I never follow
> > the WhatWG email list. I do search it when I put together change
> proposals,
> > but generally don't follow it. I'm assuming that any change that impacts
> on
> > the W3C will be documented, either directly or via link, in the W3C email
> > lists.
>
> In general, that's not a valid assumption for HTML5.  Discussion about
> the spec takes place in many forums (fora?).  I tend to send most of
> my technical feedback on the spec to the whatwg list because there's a
> higher technical content to process ratio there.
>
> Adam
>

I'm wondering whether people take their discussions to the WhatWG over the
W3C email lists, because people don't ask questions such as, who is the
customer, and what are the use cases, that are asked here.

Yet these are just as critical to understanding whether a solution is
appropriate or not, as arguing about which element's to scrub, or not.

But thanks for the link to the rather broad result. I probably won't dig
through the result, especially when I noticed that this email thread is
showing up.

If someone has links to specific email threads at the WhatWG that are very
relevant, and concise, related to this discussion, I'd really appreciate
receiving those.

Shelley