- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:10:56 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 02/09/2014 04:08, Marcos Caceres wrote: > If you can't acknowledge, or have no interest in, the *why*, then can't > go any further. It's not some silly legal-logic game we are playing here. Yes it is. Because if you're not ready to put _all_ your weight in the legal terms attached to your specs, you'll do what W3C did when it did not protect and enhance html correctly more than twelve years ago. Speaking of that, the XHTML2 hiatus stopped eight years ago, maybe it's time to move to another argument. And this suggestion comes from one of the first persons who complained strongly and in public against XHTML2 and W3C's behaviour about it... I repeat: WHATWG legal terms don't match the interpretation. WHATWG has to fix at least one of them. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 06:11:20 UTC