W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2014

Re: proposal: have W3C HTML5 reference dated WHATWG URL standard rather than W3C copy

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:17:39 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
Message-id: <E901A12E-A9D6-4890-BDC1-CCA5B894326C@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
I could have asked the director myself. I am trying to determine whether it is good enough for us, the plebs, the WG.

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [ + W3C Director ]
> 
>> On 9/26/14 7:23 PM, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:02 , Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 09/26/2014 08:28 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>>> [Snip]
>>>> Personally I would prefer if WHATWG and W3C can publish exactly same
>>>> document on bothwhatwg.org <http://whatwg.org>andw3c.org
>>>> <http://w3c.org>. I mean exactly same (maybe except visual style) so no
>>>> additional editorial effort on W3C side will be needed. Personally I
>>>> don't feel that WHATWG is currently enough stable and open body
>>>> (seehttps://whatwg.org/charter) to provide long term archival place for
>>>> specifications.
>>>> [/snip]
>>>> 
>>>> Hosting an exact copy of a snapshot for reference and archival purposes
>>>> at w3c doesn't appear to bother anyone as far as I can tell, the concern
>>>> is with unnecessary forking.  Seems sensible, does that make you feel
>>>> better about it?
>>> For that to work, at a minimum the W3C would need to publish such a snapshot.  The last time that was done was over two years ago.  A few links capturing the current state:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#url
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/url/
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JulSep/0492.html
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Sep/0010.html
>>> http://w3c.github.io/test-results/url/less-than-2.html
>> I think that the explicit question is whether a document that is a W3C CG snapshot with a suitable title, stable content, which has been through an FSA pass, is good enough for this spec. for the purposes of the HTML5 spec.
>> 
>> how can we find out?
> 
> David - my understanding of Jeff's statement in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0048.html>, is that the HTMLWG should ask the Director.
> 
> Tim - FYI, the head of this thread is <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0061.html>.
> 
> -AB
> 
>> 
>> if it is, there is a follow-on question;  does webapps need to make another copy for some other reason?
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2014 01:20:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:10 UTC