On Thursday, September 11, 2014, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ro...@w3.org'); wrote:
On 10/09/2014 18:48 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
This is a formal objection to publication of this specification.
The rationale for the objection was already sent to the wwwprocess list.
Hi Marcos,
On 11/09/2014 17:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Only once I have clear answers to the following (and see actual proof).
I know you already addressed some of this in your previous email to
Dominic.
I will address your points below, but I will repeat what I told Domenic:
I don't think
On 2014-09-11 17:19, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
5. What indicators (e.g., the big red box) will be put into the spec to
indicate that the WHATWG version is the canonical version?
...
It's my understanding that the intent is to actually make technical
changes, as indicated in:
This
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@greenbytes.de wrote:
It's my understanding that the intent is to actually make technical changes,
as indicated in:
This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in
contemporary Web browser implementations. As
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
In which case the WHATWG version wouldn't be canonical anymore anyway.
It would be for implementers.
Only those implementers that can afford to staff a team to keep up
with a moving target. That's not all potential
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
Only those implementers that can afford to staff a team to keep up
with a moving target. That's not all potential implementers.
What do you mean moving target? In general we only change
specifications if there's something wrong
On 9/11/14, 12:52 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
In which case the WHATWG version wouldn't be canonical anymore anyway.
It would be for implementers.
Only those implementers that can afford to staff a team to keep up
with a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 11/09/2014 00:14 , Glenn Adams wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process.
This is blatant trolling as well as factually
[ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication
between WebApps and TAG. ]
This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to
publish a new WD of the URL spec (on or around Sept 16) using this ED as
the basis:
http://w3ctag.github.io/url/
As
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to publish
a new WD of the URL spec (on or around Sept 16) using this ED as the basis:
http://w3ctag.github.io/url/
What about the comments raised so
On September 10, 2014 at 12:43:02 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com)
wrote:
[ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication
between WebApps and TAG. ]
This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to
publish a new WD of the URL spec (on
://blog.whatwg.org/make-patent-commitments
[5]: http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#FormalObjection
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18:40
To: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org
Subject: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec
/2014/Process-20140801/#FormalObjection
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18:40
To: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org
Subject: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec
[ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus
process.
Do you have citations for where
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
If it isn't obvious, I am stating my
(public-webapps and www-tag to bcc, +cc public-w3cproc...@w3.org. sorry
about the earlier mistake)
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams
On 9/10/14, 6:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
and they do not follow a consensus process.
Glenn, with all due respect, neither do many W3C specifications. Case
in point is http://www.w3.org/TR/navigation-timing/ which managed to get
to REC while ignoring feedback that pointed out that not a
It could be worse! After 15 years and a handful of vendor
implementations over the years, neither W3C nor WHATWG have simple
microphone upload in INPUT TYPE=file forms. There's
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/ of course, which has been almost
there since around 2007, but still doesn't say what
18 matches
Mail list logo
