- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:43:52 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > *sigh* > > The answer is that it is desirable for both documents to be authoritative or for *only* the author view to be authoritative. This has already been discussed. This was a constraint that the TAG placed on continuance of the browser-centric spec. If you want to object to the full HTML5 spec being authoritative, feel free to do so. Correction, this was not a constraint, but a request from the TAG, which at least at the time the HTML WG chose to grant. As far as I know, the TAG has no authority to override the decisions of Working Groups and therefore cannot impose a "constraint". Note to Jonas: even if the document is initially published as normative, in my opinion at least it would be valid to file a bug to make it informative or even to put it on Note track instead of REC track since the original CfC was a little vague about the implications. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 21:50:10 UTC