- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 07:59:16 +0200
- To: "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "Carl Cargill" <cargill@adobe.com>
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:23:45 +0200, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> 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. Sure we can. W3C already does that too, for things as single-page versions, translations, et cetera. Pointing to a version with JavaScript annotations and a way to report bugs, as well as having clickable definitions for backreferences, fits that line. >> It also has a much better license. > > That is your opinion, not a fact. Fair enough. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 06:00:19 UTC