- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:11:09 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> The answer is that it is desirable for both documents to be authoritative or for *only* the author view to be authoritative. This has already been discussed. This was a constraint that the TAG placed on continuance of the browser-centric spec. If you want to object to the full HTML5 spec being authoritative, feel free to do so. > > Correction, this was not a constraint, but a request from the TAG, which at least at the time the HTML WG chose to grant. As far as I know, the TAG has no authority to override the decisions of Working Groups and therefore cannot impose a "constraint". It is a constraint -- as in, the document will not progress without satisfying that constraint. The TAG carries the full power of the Director. Consider it a formal objection (made by me) that presumably will be upheld by the Director at some point in the future, unless you can change the TAG's opinion. Again, we had this discussion already. The WG agreed to it as a compromise instead of publishing separate specs for the data format and browser behavior. Why on earth you would want to reopen that can is beyond my understanding, particularly since calling both specs authoritative has no impact whatsoever on the larger spec. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:13:05 UTC