[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Sat Jul 10 17:01:36 PDT 2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:23:16 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > 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!
> My point is that when whether or no something is "open" depends on
> what dictionary definition you use, perhaps you should be making a
> practical argument for openness rather than a literal one.
I've done that, and I've been re-assured repeatedly that the process
is open, there is no hidden discussion, other than for minor typos
> You go on and on about how our
> efforts will fail if this process isn't "open" in the way you define it,
> but you seem to be the only one who has a problem with how open the
> current system is.
No, it's been raised elsewhere (consider Kendall Clark's XML.com post)
I maybe the only person participating who mentions it, but then,
there's only about 10 people participating.
More information about the whatwg