- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:13:03 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Based on the above, we are requesting that you adopt our previously > proposed text as-is rather than debating this at length: > > >> "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, but may be considered for future > >> revisions of HTML, beyond HTML5; and other features are omitted > >> because at the W3C they are published as separate > >> specifications." While I don't agree with the reasoning that led the chairs to suggest the above text, I don't have a problem with the text itself, so I've replaced the TR-version paragraph I had added before with the above paragraph. I made a few hopefully minor changes: I changed "the specification" to "the HTML specification" when referring to the WHATWG specification, since the WHATWG publishes four distinct specifications currently (this was not as much of a problem when the original text was written -- I've updated the non-TR paragraph with a similar fix); I removed a comma which was grammatically incorrect; I added the phrase "at the time of publication", to address a point raised by the chairs in the earlier e-mail on this thread (namely that the TR drafts don't change once published, so the paragraph might become incorrect without such a disclaimer); and I made the text use the past tense to fit with the use of the aforementioned phrase. I hope these changes are acceptable. Since this change removes the disclaimer regarding the likely prompt obsolescence of the TR drafts, I would like to encourage the chairs to seriously consider the point raised by Simon in this e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0456.html His point was also echoed by others, amongst which: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0451.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0493.html I would also like to suggest that we should be more frank with the readers of the specification about the differences between the HTML WG HTML5 specification and the WHATWG HTML specification, since we are chartered to persue convergence with that group. The current text, based on the text proposed by the chairs and quoted above, leaves the precise list of changes unstated. This is especially awkward (and not entirely without an appearance of a cover-up) because the paragraph immediately before this one says that the groups are "working together". I would be happy to either list the differences explicitly, or just link to another document which lists the differenes, whichever is most acceptable to the chairs. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 12:13:33 UTC