On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > For further clarification: > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > > > > Part of my opinion on this is based on various statements of Ian and > > > ms2ger that appear to set the W3C and the WHATWG in opposition to one > > > another. As such, I do not have the perception that the work in WHATWG > > > is being done as part of W3C process. > > > > For example, see [1], especially Ian's statement (my emphasis): > > > > "I find the W3C's behaviour here to be increasingly "out of control", as > > someone I spoke to recently put it. It's discourteous and uncivil. If > > the W3C wants to write their own specs then that's fine, but stop > > forking work done by other people who have no interest in working with > > the W3C at this time. This is just plagiarism." > > > > > > If Ian has no interest in working with the W3C > > I wasn't talking about my work. The W3C isn't plagiarising my work at the > moment; in the WebApps group I provide a version of the spec directly and > in the HTML group the editing team and I have an Understanding. There's > tensions and I can't say any of us are really happy, but it's done with my > involvement, at least. > > (My complaint about not crediting people does apply to me, e.g. in the > references to the W3C HTML spec rather than the WHATWG one, though I don't > really care much about getting credit; here also it's other people's > credit that I am concerned about.) > > > > then I don't know how the WHATWG is operating as a W3C CG. > > CGs can essentially operate completely independent of the W3C proper, so > there's no contradiction there. ok, but i can't help but hearing an US vs THEM theme here; i certainly don't have the perception that the WHATWG is operating as a W3C entity or within W3C processReceived on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 20:43:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:38 UTC