- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:21:06 -0400
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06/21/2010 09:03 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi Doug, > > I wrote: > >>> The 18 June 2010 editors' draft states, "Work on this specification is >>> also done at the WHATWG. The W3C HTML working group actively pursues >>> convergence with the WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group >>> charter." > > Doug wrote: > >> So, the aim of the charter to "actively pursue convergence with >> WHATWG, encouraging open participation" has clearly been met from the W3C HTML >> WG side. > > Thank you for the clarification. Do you think that the quote above > from 18 June 2010 editors' draft is okay to leave in the spec as is? > > Or would something like this work better? > "The HTML Working Group has and continues to pursue convergence with > WHATWG, encouraging open participation within the bounds of the W3C > patent policy and available resources." > > The draft currently omits anything about, "encouraging open > participation within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available > resources" which does illuminate full meaning. It also does not > recognize W3C efforts and accomplishments in pursuit of this goal. > > Or do you think sentence: > "The W3C HTML working group actively pursues convergence with the > WHATWG, as required by the W3C HTML working group charter." > should simply be omitted from the draft? It doesn’t give the full > picture, and may skew meaning. The way to effect change in the W3C Editor's draft is to open bug reports. If you do decide to open a bug report, I encourage any such to be as specific as possible. > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Laura - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 13:21:37 UTC