[whatwg] Technical Parity with W3C HTML Spec

Tab Atkins Jr. jackalmage at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 15:16:35 PDT 2010

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How
>>> can one learn of the technical motivations of decisions such as the
>>> change to require ImageData for Canvas,
>> On the WHATWG wiki a Rationale page is being assembled by a volunteer
>> (don't know their name, but they go by 'variable' in #whatwg) to
>> document the reasoning behind various decisions that come up in
>> questions.  Beyond that, mailing-list diving.
> In the case of the ImageData change, I can't find any proposal made to
> the list prior to the spec being altered, but I will dive anew.
>> There can
>> sometimes be a significant delay between something being proposed and
>> this happening, though, so within that timespan things can be
>> discussed without the "incumbent advantage" you talk about.
> That only works if changes are proposed via the mailing list, and it
> relies on meaningful delay.  If my recollection of the original
> additions of SQL databases and web workers is correct, there was very
> little such delay, certainly relative to the scale of content.
> Are you describing how you think the WHATWG has committed to work, how
> it does work, or how you think it should work?

How it does work, but there are exceptions.


More information about the whatwg mailing list