W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2014

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:37:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD73mdJk0hXYogyWtEB5EnGPjZbuG6-3kb1juQ8+qb38f06N7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3cprocess@w3.org
(public-webapps and www-tag to bcc, +cc public-w3cprocess@w3.org.  sorry
about the earlier mistake)

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>>> WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
>>
>
> If it isn't obvious, I am stating my opinion regarding the matter of
> legitimacy. Just like Domenic is stating his opinion. My opinion is based
> on 20 years of experience with the W3C and 40 years of experience with
> standards bodies.
>

OK, so it's just your opinion.


>
> The current W3C normative references guidelines [1], only recently
> published, are the only written policy of which I'm aware. This document
> does not prohibit referencing a WHATWG document.
>

>
...

>
> I agree, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable or even a good idea
> to permit normative references to a WHATWG "work", i.e., a work of Hixie
> and friends.
>

I wasn't asking what your opinion was, I was asking what W3C policy was.
 The answer appears to be that what you originally posted is not accurate
at all and you were simply stating what you wished policy was.  Thank you
for clarifying.

- James
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 23:38:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:05 UTC