Can you provide any details (either inline, or a sampling of links) to summarize the broader concerns that might not be encapsulated in the document itself?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > HTML 5.1 > W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/html/ > W3C Editor's draft: https://w3c.github.io/html/ > deadline: Thursday, October 13, 2016 > > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the > review, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that > there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so > it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first > time at this stage.) > > Note that this specification is somewhat controversial for various > reasons, mainly related to the forking of the specification from the > WHATWG copy, the quality of the work done on it since the fork, and > some of the particular modifications that have been made since that > fork. > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > email@example.com > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform