- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:46:33 +0900
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Hi David,
Le 26 avr. 2007 à 16:30, David Dorward a écrit :
> There is a lot of content that has merit in the WHATWG's work, but
> adopting it as a base would give it a great deal of inertia. Things
> that
> are "in the spec" are likely to be harder to get changed. Recieving
> the
> entire spec in one go is going to be "information overload" for some
> people and it won't get as much attention as it would if the base
> was a
> simpler specification and proprosed changes (many of which could be
> along the lines of "Adopt section 1.1 of the WHATWG work") were
> presented over time.
Once we have a version of a frozen document on W3C space, I will do a
review of the specification with my QA hat only. I think it will take
a lot of days, agreed with you.
And I will propose a shared review of the specification depending on
the use case for the specifications.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1102
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 01:46:47 UTC