[whatwg] Technical Parity with W3C HTML Spec

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> We recently had a change proposal made by Lachlan:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html
> Absolutely nobody in the W3C WG indicated any issues with this proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html
> Recently you said that you value convergence:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0525.html

Again, I would like to request that participants on this thread avoid 
discussing W3C process and discussions on this list. This list is for 
technical discussion of Web technologies and, where absolutely necessary, 
issues of immediate concern to the WHATWG community. Discussing the ins 
and outs of W3C mailing lists is not appropriate on this list, as we do 
not have the authority to effect change at the W3C on this list.


> You also characterized the change in a way that I don't believe is 
> accurate:
> 
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004270.html
> 
> What's the best way to address the mischaracterization of the difference 
> as it is currently described in the WHATWG draft?

In what sense is the difference mischaracterised? If I misunderstood why 
the example was considered inappropriate by the HTML working group, please 
let me know, on the HTML working group mailing list or privately, so that 
I can correct the mistake.


On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> On closer reading, it turns out that I was incorrect here.  It still, 
> however, remains a divergence, it still is mis-characterized, and I am 
> still can't reconcile your statement concerning valuing convergence with 
> this action.

I value technical merit even higher than convergence.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'