W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Request for editing guidance

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:17:14 +0200
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100612191714932892.55aaf8a2@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Laura Carlson, Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:43:44 -0500:

>> if they saw that the WHATwg HTML specification only differed from the
>> W3C HTML specification in its license.
> I don't understand why a duplicate spec is needed at WHATWG.
> Eliminating the WHATWG version would:
> * Remove all possibility of errors in differences.
> * Eradicate the need to provide comments on differences; there would
>   be no differences.
> * Provide efficiency in abolishing double maintenance.
> * Provide the public clarification of which document is authoritative.
> * Facilitate the convergence of the two groups as called for in our charter.

Whether one stands in the process with both feet or not, has very real 
consequences, indeed. My focus was on the credibility of Ian's 
statement "I do participate in the process" and his conclusion "... and 
it doesn't work".  Operating with a second exit only for oneself (the 
WHATwg spec), causes more debate (a.k.a. 'controversy') than progress. 
The attitude "but we can always take it out of the W3C spec and place 
it in the WHATwg spec" - in my view - stands in the way for credibility 
and commitment. However, if the other spec truly and only differs with 
regard to license, then I don't rule out that it could work OK.
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 17:17:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC