Off topic? Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

Folks, this thread is wandering into the land of he-said-she-said arguments. It would appear that the only concrete proposal is that W3C avoid working on things WHATWG is working on, and it appears that there is zero likelihood of that gaining consensus either here or at W3C.

(How WHAT-WG should deal with the world is *entirely* out of scope).

Just sayin'

Chaals (chair of the CG)

02.09.2014, 17:53, "Marcos Caceres" <>:
> On September 2, 2014 at 2:27:43 AM, Daniel Glazman ( wrote:
>> šOn 02/09/2014 08:22, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> šThen you'll have the same problem with ISO and other Standard Bodies,
>> šde jure or de facto, that did fork specs 'in extenso' in the past and
>> šwill do it again in the future because they feel they need it. More
>> šimportantly, you'll be doing one mistake W3C did in the past.
> We can cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now, stopping the W3C from copy/pasting the WHATWG specs is what matters.
> --
> Marcos Caceres

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 17:25:30 UTC