- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:52:46 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
On 9/27/14 2:20 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > I don't fully see the value of asking a question of the form "if the > WebApps Working Group were to do something that they appear to be > unwilling or unable to do, would you approve of it?" Neither do I ;-). And it appears you are the one asking the Q above (I didn't nor did Brian, AFAICT). David asked a different Q (and that is the one to which Brian and I replied): [[ <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0087.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? ]] (Although I interpreted "explicit question" to be "explicit question for the Consortium and hence ultimately Tim", David clarified he meant "explicit question for the HTMLWG".) -AB
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2014 12:53:13 UTC