- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:25:33 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 12/15/2014 09:49 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 15/12/2014 12:53, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 12/15/2014 07:25 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >>> FWIW, I noticed that the WHATWG "living standard" is referenced later, >>> but not described in the section about WHATWG. >> >> Can I get you to explain a bit more about what you are looking for? > > It was just an editorial thing... I thought it might help if the WHATWG > "living standard" phrase and idea was given a sentence or two of > explanation in the section about the WHATWG specification. Thanks! That makes sense. Instead of either belaboring the point or not doing it justice, I opted for a hypertext link instead. I've also applied this suggestion to the WebPlatform section. https://github.com/webspecs/url/commit/0b1aa691232c94e73da70023c89a0db53effb1a2 http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html#rfc.section.2.2 https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F > Specifically, that it is not intended to be a static specification, but > rather to reflect the actual state of what browsers are doing (if indeed > that is right - not being a browser implementer, I don't actually track > the WHATWG work). It is not just browser vendors, nor is it all backwards looking. I encourage you to follow the link provided and come to your own conclusions. > #g > -- - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 15:26:02 UTC