> On 3 Oct 2014, at 09:21, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > On 2014-09 -09, at 12:25, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On 9/9/14 7:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> The key words in the final sentence are "this version of the URL spec". >> >> Please see Hixie's <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Aug/0092.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Aug/0092.html>>. > > That points to a document > > https://whatwg.org/specs/url/2014-07-30/ <https://whatwg.org/specs/url/2014-07-30/> > > whose top level H1 heading right at the top is " > July 2014 Snapshot of the URL Standard for the Purposes of Patent Lawyers and Government Officials > > " > > The text from Hixie. I understand that this is the best which could be obtained as a document to be co-branded by W3C and WhatWG, that after some attempts to negotiate, Hixie refused to have that text removed. > > I find the text extremely disrespectful, and childish. > > Are those around the world looking to see how the technology developers of today are handling what is in fact the key primary specification of the web to see that as their best effort? > > Marcos, you asked what sort thing will make it possible for other standards bodies in particular W3C to treat WWG as a peer. In general, the OpenStand principles are a guide to what will. And this is an example of what won't. > > Tim FWIW +1. Dan
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 08:40:00 UTC