- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:26:41 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > The WHAT WG repeatedly talks about consensus on the mailing list, > > > where's the consensus on this mailing list that reflects the above > > > document > > > > Nowhere. It's the basis for the entire work. > > Right, so we have the same result on every other issue, could you > clarify the process document once again to reflect what areas are > consensus bound, and which are set in stone. The process doesn't involve getting consensus from the mailing list. IT is the consensus of the members that at the moment, the work be based on consensus on the mailing list. This is all very clearly laid out in the process document, and I have been explaining it to you for weeks now. > For example, if we look at the paper it says: > > "Users should not be exposed to authoring errors " > > I read that as saying that no XML profile is appropriate for WF2 - > since XML by definition requires that non-WF documents are a > catastophic fail. So the WF2 work doesn't follow that principle of > the paper. Indeed. Terrible, isn't it? > So I look forward to the removal of the XHTML mess (something that a > number of people on the list have already agreed with) What XHTML mess? As I have explained countless times, HTML4 and XHTML are implemented using shared code in all UAs that implement both. There is no way that any WHATWG spec will ever give HTML extensions different elements than XHTML extensions. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 03:26:41 UTC