W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2010

[whatwg] Technical Parity with W3C HTML Spec

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:16:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilT9vksP8G5QhVo0E6cB-kjqF4I2qlHUCrd3uWu@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>?How
>>> can one learn of the technical motivations of decisions such as the
>>> change to require ImageData for Canvas,
>>
>> On the WHATWG wiki a Rationale page is being assembled by a volunteer
>> (don't know their name, but they go by 'variable' in #whatwg) to
>> document the reasoning behind various decisions that come up in
>> questions. ?Beyond that, mailing-list diving.
>
> In the case of the ImageData change, I can't find any proposal made to
> the list prior to the spec being altered, but I will dive anew.
>
>> There can
>> sometimes be a significant delay between something being proposed and
>> this happening, though, so within that timespan things can be
>> discussed without the "incumbent advantage" you talk about.
>
> That only works if changes are proposed via the mailing list, and it
> relies on meaningful delay. ?If my recollection of the original
> additions of SQL databases and web workers is correct, there was very
> little such delay, certainly relative to the scale of content.
>
> Are you describing how you think the WHATWG has committed to work, how
> it does work, or how you think it should work?

How it does work, but there are exceptions.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 15:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC