- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:58:14 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 16.06.2010 01:40, Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> 2) In addition, we have some concerns about the following newly added >> paragraph: >> >> "The specification published by the WHATWG is not identical to this >> specification. The main differences are that the WHATWG version includes >> features not included in this W3C version: some features have been >> omitted as they are considered part of future revisions of HTML, not >> HTML5; and other features are omitted because at the W3C they are >> published as separate specifications. There are also some minor >> differences. For an exact list of differences, please see the WHATWG >> specification." >> >> We think this may give the wrong impression about the nature of the >> differences between the W3C draft and the WHATWG draft. We have the >> following concerns: >> >> (a) The text implies that all omitted features are either published as >> separate features, or necessarily part of a future version of HTML. >> While the WG has not ruled out including removed features in future >> versions of HTML, we have not committed to doing so, either. > > This working group isn't chartered to work on future versions of HTML, so > it can't really have an opinion on that. The WHATWG is working on future It can't? > revisions of HTML today. Therefore even if the W3C never published the new > features, they would be part of "future revisions" of HTML. The text > therefore seems accurate on this front. > ... Anyway; if your line of argument is that the W3C isn't working on HTML beyond HTML5, but the WHATWG is, then this is another issue we should address. >> (b) The text implies that changes other than feature removals are minor, >> but that is debatable. It's better not to make such a judgment. > > I don't see such an implication. "There are also some minor differences." >> (c) The WHATWG specification is ever-changing, so we can't be sure at >> the time of publication of a particular Working Draft that the >> referenced list of differences will continue to be correct. > > True. I've changed the build process so that the TR snapshots of the spec > get a different paragraph that is more accurate in that context: > > <p>This version of the W3C HTML5 specification is a snapshot of part > of the work done by these groups as of [LONGDAY] [YEAR]. Because the > HTML specification is continuously being maintained, implementors > and authors are strongly urged to read the latest editor's draft > instead of this snapshot. The W3C and WHATWG editor's drafts of HTML I think it's bad to publish working drafts, and to tell people not to look at them. There's a reason snapshots are published. I have no problem in pointing out that current edits reside somewhere else, but we don't need to go further than that. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 08:59:09 UTC