- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:27:50 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 24/09/13 23:21, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. No it is not. And, again, you can't speak for the whole CSS WG. > You, *personally*, might care. That's cool, whatever floats your > boat. It doesn't matter one bit to our work in the WG, though. Again no. I care as co-chair and was asked to do so. And as the AC-Rep of my own company, again no, that's not cool to see an API published under W3C Patent Policy go elsewhere w/o. I am sure some other AC-Reps will feel the same. We were not asked to move Selectors API outside of W3C, we were _notified_. > 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. My own take about this: this is not a question for individual contributors but for AC-Reps. And I'll let plh contribute more about this. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 21:28:15 UTC