- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:28:58 -0700
- To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "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>
Subject: Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications >> 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 status quo is that they aren't identical, but they're > compatible. Compatible where intersecting while one might be more advanced or even experimental but the end goal is authoring and delivery convergance at technically appropriate times. > Each feature either has identical conformance requirements, Right, each feature shared by both specs has the same conformance requirements. > if it's in both the W3C and WHATWG copies; or is in only the WHATWG > copy. In the same light, might there also be features in the W3C spec that do not appear in WHATWG? > So having two specs might cause confusion or other problems, but > it's not an interoperability concern right now. The terminal and ever-expanding goals of each normative/informative item and any differences should be explained to the using public in explicit detail. Thanks to All and Best Regards, Joe
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 17:29:40 UTC