- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:46:18 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > > > > 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" Oh, right. The basis of the WHATWG work -- the charter and the position paper, together forming the principles under which the WHATWG operates -- are what the members agree is the most important. Within the framework of the charter and the position paper, discussion guides the design work. > > > 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? Because changing fundamental conformance criteria of XML is not within the scope of the WHATWG. > > > 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 > Oh, the sending XML as text/html mess? You'll be pleased to see that this has indeed been removed from WF2: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#conformance -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 08:46:18 UTC