- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:23:25 -0400
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06/23/2010 09:28 PM, Philip Taylor wrote: > > Sam: Did you perhaps originally mean to say "To fix it in just one spec > is, in itself, an indication that convergence is *NOT* felt to be an > important criteria"? Yes, and furthermore, I intended to send the correction to that effect (below) to the entire mailing list. - Sam Ruby -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:41:49 -0400 From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> On 06/18/2010 03:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I understand that Ian fixed a bug. What I don't understand (and the > context here is the topic of convergence) is why Ian agreed to fix that > bug, but only in the W3C copy of the spec. Either there is a problem > with it or there is not. To fix it in just one spec is, in itself, an > indication that convergence is felt to be an important criteria. Correction: is *NOT* felt to be an important criteria. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 02:24:18 UTC