W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] some issues

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:56:21 -0400
Message-ID: <40EFE775.7030509@earthlink.net>
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>>>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson 
>>>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.
> 
> Yes but then previously in this thread you refused to discuss
> something (well you said it's "not up for discussion" ) so no,
> everything is not consensus if there are areas which are not up for
> consensus - Because of that, can we be told explicitly which bits are
> "not up for discussion"

    Who's to say it wasn't a consensus between the WHAT WG members? Ian 
already stated that WHAT WG materials don't have to be the result of a 
consensus between contributers.

>>>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?
> 
> I'm not sure that's really an appropriate answer, could you actually
> answer the point - Why if the whole basis of the work is from that
> paper are we not following the principles laid out in it?

    Ian has already stated that he doesn't believe in those profiles. He 
feels that if a specification needs additional profiles to make it work 
properly in certain situations, it is likely because of a problem with 
the original specification.

>>>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?
> 
> Er, rather forgetful this morning aren't we:
> <url: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml >

    I fail to see where you're going with that, especially since:

A) The Web Forms 2.0 specification is consistent with the content of the 
URL listed above.

B) Dean Edwards has an XML styling method that allows XHTML documents to 
display on IE using the correct MIME type.
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 05:56:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC