W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Option 3

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:15:30 -0700
Message-ID: <182c3005-51ac-4638-93f2-c271a78c5603@blur>
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, ian@hixie.ch
Cc: "Dailey, David P."<david.dailey@sru.edu>, public-html@w3.org, member-psig@w3.org
It is quite possible that things have changed in the last 2+ years, but I  
will state that at one time there was a consensus to forward on these use  
cases and that Ian's statements are accurate.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, "public-html@w3.org"  
<public-html@w3.org>, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 16:23:54 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Option 3

On 22.03.2011 17:07, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Dailey, David P. wrote:
>> When these issues were discussed in 2009, I was of the opinion [1], as I
>> gather Larry Rosen has said that the consensus of the Working Group was
>> that forking of the spec was not desirable.
> This is incorrect. It is possibly the majority opinion of the AC
> representatives of company members of the W3C that forking should not be
> allowed, but it is not the consensus opinion of the HTML working group. In
> fact, two of the use cases the working group presented to the W3C are
> explicitly about forking. A solution that disallows forking wouldn't be
> one that addresses the requests of the group.

...for the record: I don't believe there *is* a consensus opinion of the 

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 17:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:33 UTC