- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:22:13 +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: > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:32 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > > 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. > > They're not errors, they're decision by the Working Group. They're errors. Some of the text in the HTML WG specs is actually self-contradictory, other parts of it are gramatically incorrect, there are decisions that contradict 10-15 years of accessibility advocacy, and there's text that misuses terms as defined in the spec itself. In an earlier e-mail you wrote: > This undermines and is disrespectful the work of the HTML Working Group. Respect is earned. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 15:22:45 UTC