- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:20:03 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 04/13/2011 03:01 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>> >>> ...I haven't been objecting on the W3C side and presumably >>> why the W3C chairs have not been concerned about the divergence in the >>> context of our charter.) >> Speaking only on behalf of THIS chair, I am not only concerned about the >> divergence, I am greatly surprised each and every time you seize on an >> opportunity to widen the divergence > > When the W3C chairs make a decision to change the W3C copy of the spec, > that is the W3C chairs increasing the divergence between the versions of > the specification, not me. Quite obviously divergence between the specs > cannot be the fault of the group who's spec is not being changed. Sorry, this has totally confused me, I thought the WHATWG spec was a living standard and pretty much always changing (hence living standard), so which one is the spec that is not being changed? >> when implementing over proposals over which ABSOLUTELY NOBODY has >> objected. > > By definition, every issue that is raised on the spec is something I've > objected to, since if I didn't object, there would be nothing to escalate. Does that mean you're the only one who can escalate something? what if you don't object but somebody else does? can that objection not be escalated? Apologies, but this mail has left me a little confused. Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 21:21:01 UTC