- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:00:48 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: public-w3process@w3.org
On 9/8/2014 2:40 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/8/14 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> I will support Jeff's assertion that your comments regarding the >> current state of WHATWG's URL specification were inaccurate. > > Sorry but I don't understand what I said that is not accurate so I > would appreciate it, if you would please clarify. I did that in my first response on this thread. You said "However, based on my conversations with Consortium staff last week, the Director will NOT permit a Proposed Recommendation to include a normative reference to a WHATWG spec." And I responded: "This statement is incorrect [1]." In the internal call between Team and WG Chairs there was no categorical statement blacklisting the WHATWG. We only discussed whether a particular spec at this point in time seems to fulfill the normative reference criteria. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0042.html > > >> Can you provide a link which describes to what normative reference >> the Progress Events specification proved to be problematic and why? > > I think the changes made for the Draft PR in > <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/progress/rev/e42aba3b2853> identifies the > WHATWG references that had to be changed. As for the "why" here, if I > understand what your after, I believe the gist was "make these changes > or no PR/REC" ;-). > > -AB > > >
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 19:01:01 UTC