Re: Selectors: hooks needed by DOM

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.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 21:21:59 UTC