- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:50:47 +0200
On Thu, 24 May 2007 02:33:46 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform.no> wrote: > 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. The HTML WG accepted to review the HTML 5 proposal. Presumably members of the HTML WG are doing that. I'm not sure why they would need tutorials as well to do such a thing. > 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. I think the fundamentals of the specification are not really up for debate. It has to be compatible with the web. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 00:50:47 UTC