Re: Request for the WHATWG draft to converge with the W3C draft

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> The short form is that a proposal made by Lachlan Hunt was adopted by 
> the W3C WG based on a Call for Consensus, and this resulted in a 
> widening of the divergence between the WHATWG and W3C drafts.

Could you explain what is wrong with the example in the WHATWG draft that 
you would like removed?
          
Since this is only an example, I really don't mind if the W3C version 
diverges on this issue if the HTML working group feels it's especially 
important an issue, which is why I did not object in the HTML WG beyond 
rejecting the bug. (It would be like objecting over the differences in the 
style sheets, which are also different.) However, if there is no good 
technical reason to remove the example, and if objecting to the decision 
would provide a way for the specifications to merge by having the example 
added back to the W3C version, I would be happy to do so. Please let me 
know if that is an option. Unless informed otherwise by the WHATWG charter 
members, I will assume that in the absence of a good technical reason, the 
example should remain in the WHATWG specifications.

Note that Lachlan's rationale does not apply to the example in the WHATWG 
specification since the WHATWG specification has examples that fulfill his 
request (it has his suggested example). In fact, Lachlan's rationale 
explicitly says that "encouraging the use of vendor-neutral technologies 
over proprietary technologies is a noble goal", which is the aim of the 
example in question, so it would seem his rationale supports the examples 
currently in the WHATWG specifications.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 02:55:37 UTC