Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Marcos Caceres <> wrote:

> Ok, but then W3C has to fork for real. But, given how terrible a job the
> W3C has done thus far with forking WHAWTG specs, it's a shame tho because
> it's just going to continue to hurt the Web. The W3C and related Editors
> could be doing more productive things (i.e., as Hixie said, this is
> precisely "wasting editing resources in this idiotic fashion").

Indeed, I will not claim that it's been a stunning job.  I'd also say blame
can be shared for wasting resources on things that are not just making the
web more productive for all.  I'm not personally that invested in "not
changing", you understand.

> Here is hoping the W3C and Editors who participate in the copy/pasting
> will come to their senses and stop this practice.

Or, conversely, here is hoping the WHATWG (editors in particular) come to
their senses, realize that maybe rough consensus isn't just a hard nut to
swallow (nor are IP-friendly practices), and work with those of us in W3C
space who care about making better practice the norm (e.g. make /TR/ not a
graveyard, at least, as I've put it - just because it's not a "living
standard" doesn't mean it's a "dead standard" model) together on just
making the web better, rather than presume there should always be two
antagonistic entities.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 22:59:57 UTC