- From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:23:45 -0700
- To: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
> The WHATWG version has several features through the use of JavaScript that > the W3C version lacks. > That's a specific representation of the standard, not the actual normative text of the standard. Because the actual normative text is the approved W3C version, we can't be pointing people to some other non-normative work. >It also has a much better license. > That is your opinion, not a fact. The fact is that the WHATWG document is NOT the official normative standard from a recognized SDO and therefore should NOT be referenced from the official version. Co-chairs - this seems like an issue that needs to be addressed at your level (or above). Leonard -----Original Message----- From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'Edward O'Connor'; Simpson, Grant Leyton; Leonard Rosenthol Cc: public-html@w3.org Subject: Re: preparing WG publication On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:12:56 +0200, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I can certainly see that the WHATWG version of the document should link > to the W3C version, since that is the official standard as issued by a > recognized standards body. However, I see no reason for the reverse, > since anything that is in the WHATWG version will either be already in > the W3C version _OR_ it will be "future stuff". The WHATWG version has several features through the use of JavaScript that the W3C version lacks. It also has a much better license. We're also supposed to work together with the WHATWG community. Having links both ways makes sense. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 20:26:21 UTC