- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What > does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features > in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group. See > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#how-do-the-whatwg-and-w3c-specifications-differ? > > This list keeps growing. This is exactly _why_ we should reference the WHATWG copy rather than the W3C one. The W3C one has a growing list of intentional errors. On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > I don't see that in any of the HTML last call documents, like > http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/#references The only reason that refers to the W3C copy of HTML and not the WHATWG copy is that the WHATWG copy includes canvas in its entirety already, so the reference would just be confusing. The only reason there's a reference there in the first place is because the W3C copy is randomly split into two unlike the WHATWG version. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 14:32:44 UTC