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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:23:24 -0400
Message-ID: <54280BCC.4040700@intertwingly.net>
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

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