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

[whatwg] some issues

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:01:36 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104071017017677b8b4@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:23:16 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > Because the whole point of this is it's being done in the open, if
> > it's not an open process, don't pretend that it is, and don't pretend
> > that just keeping a latest draft available is open, it's not!
> 
>    My point is that when whether or no something is "open" depends on
> what dictionary definition you use, perhaps you should be making a
> practical argument for openness rather than a literal one.

I've done that, and I've been re-assured repeatedly that the process
is open, there is no hidden discussion, other than for minor typos
etc.

> You go on and on about how our
> efforts will fail if this process isn't "open" in the way you define it,
> but you seem to be the only one who has a problem with how open the
> current system is.

No, it's been raised elsewhere (consider Kendall Clark's XML.com post)
I maybe the only person participating who mentions it, but then,
there's only about 10 people participating.

Jim.
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 17:01:36 UTC

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