[whatwg] some issues

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > >
> > > 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"

Oh, right. The basis of the WHATWG work -- the charter and the position
paper, together forming the principles under which the WHATWG operates --
are what the members agree is the most important. Within the framework of
the charter and the position paper, discussion guides the design work.


> > > 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?

Because changing fundamental conformance criteria of XML is not within the
scope of the WHATWG.


> > > 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 >

Oh, the sending XML as text/html mess? You'll be pleased to see that this
has indeed been removed from WF2:

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#conformance

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