- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:59:00 -0400
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- CC: public-w3process@w3.org
On 09/08/2014 03:00 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > 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 That matches my recollection. >>> 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" ;-). I'll observe that none of the references that were replaced are stable. Whether there were other proposed solutions that were evaluated and rejected, I'd prefer not to speculate. >> -AB - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 19:59:49 UTC