RE: publishing new WD of URL spec from Domenic Denicola on 2014-09-10 (www-tag@w3.org from September 2014)

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:35:36 +0000
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7d22ddf6bc5f4c2b8706d14b69d7f0b1@BN1PR05MB325.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

[public-webapps and www-tag to bcc]

Hi Glenn, James,

I think as Art carefully reminded us, this is off-topic for www-tag and public-webapps. I hope you will contain further discussions to public-w3process as was requested.

From: James Robinson [mailto:jamesr@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 00:28
To: Glenn Adams
Cc: Domenic Denicola; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.

Do you have a citation to back up this claim?

Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process.

Do you have citations for where this is listed as part of the requirements for references in W3C specifications?

I know these are your personal opinions but am not aware of anything that states this is W3C process.

- James

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 22:36:30 UTC