W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

RE: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:05:57 +0200
Message-Id: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602ED018D5552@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "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>
Hi Anne,

It is important for them to agree because there actually cannot be two
specifications for the same thing.

To (ab)use the public to resolve issues that the WG could not resolve is
plainly wrong.
It will cause confusion and simply hurt the adoption of HTML5 as a

People the world over are looking to W3C for guidance in this respect.
It is what they know. There is trust.  
It is the recognized body for Web specifications.

I maintain that it is highly dangerous to have another specification,
parallel to the W3C specification, dealing with the same topic, no
matter how different or similar in content.

-- Kai


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: Laura Carlson; Doug Schepers
> Cc: Ian Hickson; Maciej Stachowiak; Sam Ruby; Paul Cotton; HTML WG
> Subject: Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications
> 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 11:06:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC