Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, James Robinson <> wrote:
>> The answer appears to be that what you originally posted is not accurate
>> at all and you were simply stating what you wished policy was.  Thank you
>> for clarifying.
> Are you saying I am lying about my opinion? My opinion is that referencing
> a WHATWG is not legitimate. Some apparently opine otherwise. Both sides are
> opinion. Do you think otherwise?

You stated that W3C process forbids referencing WHATWG  documents.  That is
not accurate.  It is your opinion that W3C process *should* ban such
references, but that's an opinion on what should be and not a factual
statement about what is.  You are lying (or at least being deliberately
misleading) when you state that the current state is already what you wish
it were.

- James

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:21:10 UTC