On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
If we all subscribed to that point of view though, everyone would still be
stuck using IE5. As it is, there's a push by developers to use features that
IE has always been slow to implement but other browsers
On 26.06.2010 01:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
...
Note that has a browser isn't enough to give a company veto power.
You need has a browser with sufficient market share (where
sufficient is somewhere around 1%, based on previous remarks from
Ian). This is due to the reasons stated above - the veto
Hi, WHATWG folks-
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C
draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my opinion,
the specific technical details of any given feature (which, let's be
fair, are often more-or-less arbitrary) is of lesser importance
On Jun 25, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
There are a few possible ways to handle this:
1) W3C could match the WHATWG version in all details, with all decisions made
by WHATWG
2) WHATWG could match the W3C version in all details, with all decisions made
by W3C
3) WHATWG and W3C
How is that productive? I realize that it's meant as a joke but it does nothing
but add to the impression that some in the WHATWG community just don't care
about civility, respect, and cooperation.
The best thing to counteract that impression is to prove it wrong.
On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:51 AM,
Appreciate the informations on what's currently hurting the specs...
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Doug Schepers d...@schepers.cc wrote:
Hi, WHATWG folks-
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C
draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Doug Schepers d...@schepers.cc wrote:
Hi, WHATWG folks-
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C
draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my opinion, the
specific technical details of any given feature (which,
On 25.06.2010 18:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
...
Alternately, we could continue work solely in the HTMLWG. This would
not be possible unless we change the way the HTMLWG works somewhat,
though. There's a *reason* that almost no technical discussion
happens within the HTMLWG. If we were to
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 25.06.2010 18:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
...
Alternately, we could continue work solely in the HTMLWG. This would
not be possible unless we change the way the HTMLWG works somewhat,
though. There's a *reason*
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 25.06.2010 18:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
...
Alternately, we could continue work solely in the HTMLWG. This would
not be possible unless we change the way the HTMLWG works somewhat,
though. There's a *reason*
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:13:13 -0400, Doug Schepers d...@schepers.cc wrote:
Hi, WHATWG folks-
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C
draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my opinion,
the specific technical details of any given feature
On 25.06.2010 20:33, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
...
I do follow public-html, but my message list is full of a bunch of
messages with subjects like isssue N or change proposal n or bug n
- part of the subject ..., which don't make any sense until I drift off
to the bts and have disconnected
I would like to encourage peopel participating in this thread to focus
exclusively on coordination with the W3C. In particular, this is not the
right forum to discuss the W3C HTML WG public-html mailing list, the W3C
HTML WG's decision policies, or other W3C matters. We don't have the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Maybe the answer is to have a spokesperson or liaison role, someone
respected in the WHATWG community with a reputation for reasonable
neutrality? Both Hixie and Maciej have conflicts of interest, as editor
and W3C co-chair
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Yet, when you made the change, you did it in a way that made the
WHATWG version not a proper superset.
On closer reading, it turns out that I was incorrect here. It still,
however, remains a divergence, it still is
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
We recently had a change proposal made by Lachlan:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html
Absolutely nobody in the W3C WG indicated any issues with this proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
The WHATWG has a steering council made up of browser developers.
Officially, they can override Ian's decisions or make him step down as
editor. They've never had to exercise this power yet, though.
Could you elaborate
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I value technical merit even higher than convergence.
How is technical merit assessed? Removing Theora from the
specification, for example, seems like it was for political rather
than technical reasons, if I understand how you
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
The WHATWG has a steering council made up of browser developers.
Officially, they can override Ian's decisions or make him step down as
editor.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom of the charter: http://www.whatwg.org/charter
I believe the decision process is knife fight to first blood.
Editors should reflect the consensus opinion of the working group
when writing their specifications,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I value technical merit even higher than convergence.
How is technical merit assessed? Removing Theora from the
specification, for example, seems like
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom of the charter: http://www.whatwg.org/charter
I believe the decision process is knife fight to first blood.
Editors should reflect the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@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
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't precise in my language - don't read too much into my exact wording.
No, certainly; I'm much more interested in the spirit here than the
wording, since it doesn't match my experience or understanding. I'll
take
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Doug Schepers d...@schepers.cc wrote:
As you are probably aware, some differences have arisen between the W3C
draft of the HTML5 spec and the larger WHATWG version. In my opinion, the
specific technical details of any given feature (which, let's be fair, are
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
While I agree that it is helpful for us to cooperate, I should point out
that the WHATWG was never formally approached by the W3C about this
With whom (and where?) would such a formal discussion take place?
I would prefer that
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure they won't be. Any significant implementer has always
had veto power over the spec.
I fear that simply refusing to implement is indeed the WHATWG's
equivalent of how Tab described FO-threats in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
While I agree that it is helpful for us to cooperate, I should point out
that the WHATWG was never formally approached by the W3C about this
With whom (and where?) would such a formal
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm pretty sure they won't be. Any significant implementer has always
had veto power over the spec.
I fear that simply refusing to
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:11 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm pretty sure they won't be. Any significant implementer has always
had
On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't precise in my language - don't read too much into my exact wording.
No, certainly; I'm much more interested in the spirit here than the
wording, since it
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
While I agree that it is helpful for us to cooperate, I should point out
that the WHATWG was never formally approached by
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
That is not my recollection of what happened with offline, for what
it's worth. Mozilla and Google had a relatively small set of
deviations between approaches (ours developed on the whatwg list and
Google's developed
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
Who from Mozilla objected? I didn't object, because I thought Ian's approach
(manifests) was better than ours (JAR files). And I thought ours was quite
different from Gears' (which used manifests, IIRC).
There were
34 matches
Mail list logo
