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
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
On 20 July 2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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,
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
On 25 July 2012 18:12, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
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 a
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 long
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
