Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> We've discussed this many times as the HTML partnership has evolved over 
> the years.  Most recently was 10 months ago.  You had raised issues 
> about there being confusion between the specs.  W3C is publishing a 
> differences document [1] to help clarify the confusion.

That document is woefully incomplete, as I said at the time.

I recently looked through the two specs. We've gotten to the point now 
where they've diverged so much that a good 20% of the W3C version is 
different than the source version. This is bad for the Web. You, 
personally, are damaging the Web by continuing to allow this. The W3C is 
damaging the Web by doing this. It is literally counter to your mission.

But this is not the only spec. You're now doing it again with the URL 
spec. You've done it with the DOM spec. And so on.

> I'm sorry that you view this as disrespect. I've expressed many times my 
> views why this is not the case, but obviously I have not succeeded in 
> making my case to your satisfaction.

If someone feels disrespected, then pretty much _by definition_ they are 
being disrespected.

Stop copying our work! Seriously, how hard can this possibly be to 
understand? If you think that you should have an HTML spec, a DOM spec, a 
URL spec, whatever, then _write your own spec_. Don't copy our work. (But 
even better, don't waste resources by developing redundant specs in the 
first place. The Web has enough threatening its existence without us 
wasting editing resources in this idiotic fashion.)

It's especially hypocritical since the W3C has many times said that you 
think it would be bad for people to do this to your specs!

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 05:14:54 UTC