On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > On 24/09/13 22:58, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Where another spec is worked on is irrelevant to us. > > Tab, I am not going to discuss this with you. And please > don't use "us", you can't speak in the name of the whole > Membership. I'm just saying something obvious - we, the CSSWG, don't care *in the slightest* where DOM work goes on. It's irrelevant to our work. You, *personally*, might care. That's cool, whatever floats your boat. It doesn't matter one bit to our work in the WG, though. >> Does this instruction have a link? > > No. Private conversations on the phone between chairs and W3M > don't have a public URL yet, sorry. Plh, cc:ed, can confirm. I'd appreciate some official note, along with arguments as to why referring to DOM is verboten, but referring to equally-unstable W3C ED/WD documents is fine. I'm not particularly confident in W3C leadership's ability to make unprejudiced decisions about the WHATWG, based on history. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 21:21:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC