Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  [public-webapps and www-tag to bcc]
>
>
>
> Hi Glenn, James,
>
>
>
> I think as Art carefully reminded us, this is off-topic for www-tag and
> public-webapps. I hope you will contain further discussions to
> public-w3process as was requested.
>

The last thing I want to do is join a process oriented ML to hash this out.
Since you posted to webapps, and since that is how I received your message,
that is where I intend to respond. Cheers.


>
>
> *From:* James Robinson [mailto:jamesr@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 00:28
> *To:* Glenn Adams
> *Cc:* Domenic Denicola; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; www-tag@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: publishing new WD of URL spec
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>  WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
>
>
>
> Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
>
>
>
>  Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus
> process.
>
>
>
> Do you have citations for where this is listed as part of the requirements
> for references in W3C specifications?
>
>
>
> I know these are your personal opinions but am not aware of anything that
> states this is W3C process.
>
>
>
> - James
>