[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Sat Jul 10 15:40:16 PDT 2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:30:25 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > No, but it's key to the WHAT WG that it is an open process, so
> > it's done, it would be done in public (so at the very least there'd be
> > a post on the list.)
> So really, what the public doesn't know is what the public doesn't
> care enough to ask about. Does that make the process non-open?
> Perhaps in the strictest sense, but then why should we care?
Because the whole point of this is it's being done in the open, if
it's not an open process, don't pretend that it is, and don't pretend
that just keeping a latest draft available is open, it's not! I don't
particularly care if it's open or not (I'll have zero confidence in
the result, and the uptake of this if it's closed, I believe open is
key, just like the Mozilla Opera position paper states) but as we're
told it's open, I'm going to choose to accept that it is, and query
things like in this thread that suggest otherwise.
If the WHAT-WG come out say - "not everything's public, it's not an
open process, but we'll keep the latest draft public" then fine.
They've not said that yet though.
> It was my understanding that for XHTML, he is creating a new XHTML
> Module called XHTML5B. I don't know enough about SGML to make
> a comment about it.
> > And I have a method that allows simply by a registry tweak, but I
> > don't see that really makes any difference to the point in hand.
> XSLT can be used to transform documents without altering the user's
> Registry, and the user doesn't even have to know about it.
I still don't see the point (and xslt cab be disabled to you know...)
More information about the whatwg