- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:39:13 +0200
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- 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>
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:27:31 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > 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. It would be interesting to know why that is important. If the specifications have differences and they turn out to be largely ignored there is no real problem. If they are not largely ignored and one specification has more traction we can try to learn from that. Maybe one can imagine certain doom scenarios, but just as with terrorist threats they are probably not very realistic. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 10:40:23 UTC