- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:41:27 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: annevk@opera.com, brendan@mozilla.com, dbaron@mozilla.com, hyatt@apple.com, dean.edwards@gmail.com, howcome@opera.com, jst@mozilla.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 06/25/2010 08:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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? Lachlan's change proposal adequately described what was wrong with the example. I provided three options, and listed my order of preference. If the example is to be retained, and this is done without presenting any new information that would merit reopening the decision, then my request is that the differences indicated why the WHATWG felt it necessary to diverge, and that the description reflect the rationale provided by Lachlan. But again, I wish to stress that from my perspective, this is the least preferable option. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 03:42:12 UTC