On Thu, 24 May 2007 02:33:46 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The WHATwg spec has become the starting-point. Victory, said Anne van.
Sounds more like Ian think the HTMLwg is a drag. Anne tells in his blog
how he presents HTML5 to different audiences. And Karl Dubost began
speaking about tutorial for users. But who needs a tutorial here, if not
the HTMLwg itself? Doesn't the WHATwg spec as starting point mean that
WHATwg somehow have been given a responsibility here? To present its
spec to the _HTMLwg_? Section for section. After all, you wanted the
HTMLwg to accept it. And you therfore are obligued to present it - and
deserve the space and time to do so. It is really difficult to discuss
small bits such as class names unless we have a broader context.
The HTML WG accepted to review the HTML 5 proposal. Presumably members of
the HTML WG are doing that. I'm not sure why they would need tutorials as
well to do such a thing.
On 2007-05-23 23:20:40 +0200 Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied to
Julian:
If the spec I'm working on isn't that spec, then I'll stop working on
it, and return to working on the spec with real-world relevance.)
I think many would feel that the whole process would pretty much falls
apart if this should happen. On the other side, it doesn't sound as if
you are open to much debate. You better think about how you present this
to the HTMLwg. No one likes to discuss under a Damocles sword. On the
other side, it is just fair to say that there are some limites on what
one can accept. But then again, the HTMLwg has been conveened pretty
much because of WHATwg - so it would be a bit strange.
I think the fundamentals of the specification are not really up for
debate. It has to be compatible with the web.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
