Hi Steve,
you are trying to keep it technical by picking one example. But I guess
you are missing a point, this is not technical issue here,
this is not about choosing, this is about market.
I do understand, that HTML is more than a set of tags and rules to use
them, there are a lot of differe
Hi Bronslav
- keeping to the technical as per hixi'e request
you wrote:
" both derives their
authority from browser vendors - "specification" not supported by
majority of browsers is irrelevant, developers can only work with what
is in the browser (plugins are becoming obsolete, as it would seem
2012-07-25 20:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
Just so that it's possible to understand how to name the two new
branches correctly, can you confirm that the W3C branch is now called
"HTML5" and the WHATWG branch is named 'HTML Living Standard'.
Is this the lon
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> Just so that it's possible to understand how to name the two new
> branches correctly, can you confirm that the W3C branch is now called
> "HTML5" and the WHATWG branch is named 'HTML Living Standard'.
> Is this the long term project name, or just
On 25 July 2012 18:12, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> To reiterate the statement I made in the original post on this thread:
>
> If you have any questions, I encourage you to e-mail me privately or ask
> on the IRC channel (#whatwg on Freenode); process-related discussion is
> discouraged on this mailing
To reiterate the statement I made in the original post on this thread:
If you have any questions, I encourage you to e-mail me privately or ask
on the IRC channel (#whatwg on Freenode); process-related discussion is
discouraged on this mailing list so that we can maintain a high technical
sign
Le 25 juil. 2012 à 10:04, David Bruant a écrit :
>> W3C forgot that.
> Who did? I mean, the actual people.
Nobody forgot. The discussions are not about WHATWG vs W3C. This is nonsense.
There W3C is not a monolithic bloc either. Most of the browser engineers
working on whatwg lists, IRC channels,
On 25.7.2012 16:55, Steve Faulkner wrote:
hi Bronislav
you wrote:
I was just looking at WHATWG wiki and there is nice sentence: "In
general the WHATWG will ensure that the normative content of the
specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
the same so long as the W3C
On 25.7.2012 16:52, David Bruant wrote:
Le 25/07/2012 16:36, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
On 25.7.2012 16:04, David Bruant wrote:
Le 25/07/2012 15:32, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
And my last remark: I hope major browser vendors will chose to
follow the same path, the same implementation of tasks
hi Bronislav
you wrote:
I was just looking at WHATWG wiki and there is nice sentence: "In
general the WHATWG will ensure that the normative content of the
specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
the same so long as the W3C group doesn't demonstrate any serious lapses
Le 25/07/2012 16:36, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
On 25.7.2012 16:04, David Bruant wrote:
Le 25/07/2012 15:32, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
And my last remark: I hope major browser vendors will chose to
follow the same path, the same implementation of tasks, but not all
major vendors are part of W
On 25.7.2012 16:04, David Bruant wrote:
Le 25/07/2012 15:32, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
And my last remark: I hope major browser vendors will chose to follow
the same path, the same implementation of tasks, but not all major
vendors are part of WHATWG (as far as I know), and if some choose to
Le 25/07/2012 15:32, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
And my last remark: I hope major browser vendors will chose to follow
the same path, the same implementation of tasks, but not all major
vendors are part of WHATWG (as far as I know), and if some choose to
follow W3C and some different WHATWG draf
Le 25/07/2012 15:32, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
And my last remark: I hope major browser vendors will chose to follow
the same path, the same implementation of tasks, but not all major
vendors are part of WHATWG (as far as I know), and if some choose to
follow W3C and some different WHATWG draf
Canonical means neither "correct" nor "accurate", those words have no
meaning in this case, you cannot apply them on set of rules (you
first have to have set of rules, to claim, whether something is
accurate or correct within the boundaries of those rules), canonical
means, that those set of
Le 25/07/2012 13:45, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
On 20.7.2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Hixie,
I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
"The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
The cla
On 20.7.2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Hixie,
I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
"The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical app
On 20 July 2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Hixie,
>
> I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
>
> "The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
> canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
>
> The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical appe
Hi Hixie,
I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
"The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical appears to imply that
the requirements and advice contained with
If you've been happily ignoring the W3C's involvement with HTML these past
few years, you can stop reading now. If you got a bunch of bugmail
recently and want to know why, the explanation is below.
A few years ago (around 2007), we started working with the W3C on what we
were then unofficial
Last year the W3C introduced a new framework for people developing
specifications, which they call "Community Groups" (CGs). Since then we
have moved a few parts of the HTML standard under CGs, most notably
Aryeh's HTML Editing APIs specification [1], which replaced the old
execCommand() spec
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > There's no public accountability for this group, no. It's roughly
> > equivalent to W3C staff, except that it is not a paid position.
>
> W3C staff report through a variety of documented means to their
> stakeholders (including at regular events,
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Dan Brickley wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG "membership" (as
defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people whom I
have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited du
Le 31 mars 2008 à 10:43, Ian Hickson a écrit :
There's no public accountability for this group, no. It's roughly
equivalent to W3C staff, except that it is not a paid position.
If you really want your metaphor flies…
You could have said "it's roughly equivalent to W3C Members of
Advisory C
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG "membership" (as
> > defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people whom I
> > have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited due to his long
Hi Ian,
Ian Hickson wrote:
FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG "membership"
(as defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people
whom I have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited due to his
long involvement in the WHATWG. This oversight gro
FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG "membership"
(as defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people
whom I have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited due to his
long involvement in the WHATWG. This oversight group doesn't do much and
this
27 matches
Mail list logo
