- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:23:24 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, 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 09/28/2014 08:52 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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). There certainly are number of people are advocating pointing to a document that very much does exist (a WHATWG snapshot). Brian claiming that "sentiment seems clear" to point to a hypothetical document - the long promised and as of yet undelivered update to the WebApps snapshot. I see value in bringing Tantek's suggestion to the attention of the director. I question the value in discussing here the possibility of something that ceased to be discussed weeks ago -- at least publicly -- the possibility of a WebApps update to the URL spec that it previously was working on in conjunction with the TAG. - Sam Ruby > 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 13:23:51 UTC