- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:17:32 +1000
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:56:19 +1000, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> wrote: > On Oct 29, 2006, at 19:16, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> So what comes out will probably be a (perhaps evolved) version of >> WHATWG stuff, as has been the case in some other W3C groups already. > > That would be excellent. > > Perhaps I was overly worried, because I couldn't tell from the > announcement where this is going. I hope so :) >>>> Or will the WHAT WG activities continue with an endorsement from the >>>> W3C? >> >> I would be very surprised. As Tim notes, the WHATWG doesn't have what >> he calls "accountability measures" (by which I think he means a process >> with more of the checks and balances that are found in W3C's), which >> would make it hard for W3C to endorse anything WHATWG have yet to do. > > I don't expect the W3C to endorse the WHAT WG itself. What I meant to > ask if the WHAT WG spec drafts continue to be worked on under the banner > of the W3C. This is an existing trend so I don't see why it wouldn't continue... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo espa?ol - je parle fran?ais - jeg l?rer norsk chaals at opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 06:17:32 UTC