- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:01:46 -0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Le 29/02/12 17:46, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Daniel Glazman >> <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >>> >>> Le 28/02/12 22:49, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >>>> >>>> If we do, we should broaden it to all non-W3C references, like RFCs, >>>> which we definitely refer to in some places. >>> >>> FIWI, RFCs are a bit different here: W3C does not have working groups >>> on same topics and specs of same names... >> >> Irrelevant; the concern is with patents, not politics. > > Don't tell _me_ that. The CSS WG is still a W3C WG, and W3C does > have some rules. I don't think the W3C has any rule that says "Thou shalt not refer to the WHATWG version of HTML." ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 17:02:38 UTC