- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 23:25:16 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > I think he may be overstating his case, particularly as I have traditionally > seen much of the value proposition for the WHATWG to be something along the > lines of "we reverse engineer so that you don't have to". Be that as it > may, I would be willing to accept that this is not the way that Anne would > like to work or what he does. That you continue the thread here seems rather dubious. If you want to actually document reality as it is today you will need to list all the different implementations and describe what they do. There's no standards document that does such a thing to my knowledge. Rather, they align with one or more implementations, sometimes zero if there's agreement to go with something better, and then as implementations and the specification iterate they converge. > Anne has repeatedly described his effort as something that hasn't attracted > sufficient implementer interest, something that he doesn't have bandwidth > for at the moment, and something for which a large portion of the spec is in > need of a rewrite. I reject this characterization. > By contrast, I seem to be having no problems attracting implementer > interest Which browser is interested? There are implementers of the URL Standard, the hard case is getting browser implementations. > Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated, as I don't want to spend > further time on politics, I would much rather be focusing on convergence and > interop. On this we can agree. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 22:25:44 UTC