W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2007

[whatwg] Style sheet loading and parsing (over HTTP)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 02:33:46 +0200
Message-ID: <<943a6648e99d8e658f2a6da2f1f4be9f@10013.local>>
On 2007-05-23 22:59:19 +0200 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> Ian, I understand that this is what the WHATWG'S HTML5 document does today; I 
> just don't see how it can become the W3C's HTML5 spec while doing this. It 
> seems to me it's pointless to continue this thread over here, but the same 
> issues will come up again on the W3C mailing list for sure.

I just joined this list and the HTMLwg because I read Anne's blog. I might only be a fly in the soup. On the other side, the member of WHATwg has been telling us for months that ?this is important, please join?. Hence, I raise my voice.

Because Julian makes some good points here. This is in line what I have been thinking for a while. You - the WHATwg - need to face the lions of the HTMLwg.  For instance, Ian, to tell on _this_ list that predefined classes are taken out of the spec. But not inform (as I noticed, anyway) the forum which caused the removal about the same issue, what is that? [1] 

The WHATwg spec has become the starting-point. Victory, said Anne van. Sounds more like Ian think the HTMLwg is a drag. Anne tells in his blog how he presents HTML5 to different audiences. And Karl Dubost began speaking about tutorial for users. But who needs a tutorial here, if not the HTMLwg itself? Doesn't the WHATwg spec as starting point mean that WHATwg somehow have been given a responsibility here? To present its spec to the _HTMLwg_? Section for section. After all, you wanted the HTMLwg to accept it. And you therfore are obligued to present it - and deserve the space and time to do so. It is really difficult to discuss small bits such as class names unless we have a broader context.

On 2007-05-23 23:20:40 +0200 Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> replied to Julian:
> If the spec I'm working on isn't that spec, then I'll stop working on it, and 
> return to working on the spec with real-world relevance.)

I think many would feel that the whole process would pretty much falls apart if this should happen. On the other side, it doesn't sound as if you are open to much debate. You better think about how you present this to the HTMLwg. No one likes to discuss under a Damocles sword. On the other side, it is just fair to say that there are some limites on what one can accept. But then again, the HTMLwg has been conveened pretty much because of WHATwg - so it would be a bit strange.

[1] <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/spec/Overview.html#rev1.26>
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 17:33:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:55 UTC