- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:27:31 +0100
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, Laura- To be honest, I don't have an strong opinion about that wording. What I want is technically identical specs so we have interoperability. The politics of the wording are of little utility, they seem only to be covering up the elephant in the room. The W3C HTML5 and WHATWG HTML5 specs need to agree, point for point. However the WHATWG and W3C HTML WG work this out is less important than that single point. If anyone disagrees with that, I'd appreciate a serious and sober explanation. Regards- -Doug Laura Carlson wrote (on 6/21/10 2:03 PM): > 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. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Laura
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 10:27:37 UTC