Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marcos Caceres <> wrote:

> Again, the simple request is for the W3C to please stop copy/pasting the
> WHATWG specs.
> Jeff, can we please get an acknowledgement that this will now stop?

I, for one, speaking as an individual would hope the answer to that
continues to be "no."

Marcos, you assert that forking is for when "the Editor goes rogue or there
is a loss of confidence in the WHATWG", but then you go on to say "we are
not at [the point where that has happened]".   I thought Anne stated it
quite well when he said "Forking should be the path taken only when no
cooperation can be done with the party where the work originates or when
the goals are fundamentally different."   Unlike him, I think those caveats
DO apply in this case - perhaps not NO cooperation, but it's clear the W3C
and the WHATWG have divergent goals.  The W3C membership still believes (in
my experience - happy to suggest an AC poll) that having static TRs is a
good idea (as opposed to the living standard model), modulo the
process/publishing changes I mentioned earlier in this thread, and the
W3C's participation model is founded on the idea that rough concensus is
the right basis for standards.

The W3C and the WHATWG have fundamental differences in working model.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 22:32:37 UTC