[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Sat Jul 10 04:05:41 PDT 2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:26:41 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson
> > Right, so we have the same result on every other issue, could you
> > clarify the process document once again to reflect what areas are
> > consensus bound, and which are set in stone.
> The process doesn't involve getting consensus from the mailing list. IT is
> the consensus of the members that at the moment, the work be based on
> consensus on the mailing list. This is all very clearly laid out in the
> process document, and I have been explaining it to you for weeks now.
Yes but then previously in this thread you refused to discuss
something (well you said it's "not up for discussion" ) so no,
everything is not consensus if there are areas which are not up for
consensus - Because of that, can we be told explicitly which bits are
"not up for discussion"
> > I read that as saying that no XML profile is appropriate for WF2 -
> > since XML by definition requires that non-WF documents are a
> > catastophic fail. So the WF2 work doesn't follow that principle of
> > the paper.
> Indeed. Terrible, isn't it?
I'm not sure that's really an appropriate answer, could you actually
answer the point - Why if the whole basis of the work is from that
paper are we not following the principles laid out in it?
> > So I look forward to the removal of the XHTML mess (something that a
> > number of people on the list have already agreed with)
> What XHTML mess?
Er, rather forgetful this morning aren't we:
<url: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml >
More information about the whatwg