On 9/6/11 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off incorporating
git. It's quite easy.
We have them.
de
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
>
> Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions
> on the way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
Yes (or eliminate the TR/ space entirely and keep the specs elsewhere).
> A major implication relate
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
> pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off incorporating
> git. It's quite easy.
We have them.
dev.w3.org is the older CSS repository (still used
On 9/5/11 12:11 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
>the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far
>as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of
>things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Marcos
>
> Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions on the
> way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
Yes
>
> A major implication relates to IPR licensing obliga
Hi Marcos
Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions on the
way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
A major implication relates to IPR licensing obligations, which serve to
protect implementers. These obligations are incurred relative to steps in the
On 2011-09-06 01:02, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
> the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far
> as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of
> things, where Internet Draf
On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> ...
>> Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
>> love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable
>> then the Editor's Draft. It's sim
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > ...
> > Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
> > love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable
> > then the Edi
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the
Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to
codify this.
bl
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 13:47, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
> On the contrary, but still supporting your point, as an implementer I always
> reference editor's drafts as the authoritative source given they are most
> up-to-date. This could be considered bad practice analogous to pulling WebKit
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an "editor's
>> draft" has "no special status" is false, and I stand by this: editors'
>> dr
On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an "editor's
> draft" has "no special status" is false, and I stand by this: editors'
> drafts are the most up-to-date revisions of their respective specs. Since
> TR/ drafts
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Doug Schepers wrote:
> On 9/3/11 2:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > >
> > > But, the WHATWG HTML links to the editor's drafts and does not link
> > > to the TR one. While documents on the REC-track should link to other
> > > do
Hi, Ian-
On 9/3/11 2:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
But, the WHATWG HTML links to the editor's drafts and does not link to
the TR one. While documents on the REC-track should link to other
documents on the REC tracks, this doesn't apply to editor's dr
On Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:14:50 +0200, Marcos Caceres
> mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> You can suggest a session on http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/SessionIdeas
> Depending on who attends it may or may not turn out
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:14:50 +0200, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
Can we please arrange a formal forum for this discussion and debate
during TPAC? I've said this a number of times, but I am getting to the
point where I no longer want to put anything on TR because I've seen how
harmful that can be
On Saturday, 3 September 2011 at 20:54, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >
> > But, the WHATWG HTML links to the editor's drafts and does not link to
> > the TR one. While documents on the REC-track should link to other
> > documents on the REC tracks,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>
> But, the WHATWG HTML links to the editor's drafts and does not link to
> the TR one. While documents on the REC-track should link to other
> documents on the REC tracks, this doesn't apply to editor's draft, which
> have no special status anyw
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 23:59 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:47:53 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
> > specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
> > Progress Events. T
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:47:53 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I
can tell.
They us
thanks for your comment Karl, i have no further contribution on this
subject; in any case, I am not a member of the AC list;
regards, glenn
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> If I may…
>
> this discussion about the merits, status, etc of the two organizations
> should happen
If I may…
this discussion about the merits, status, etc of the two organizations should
happen either on www-archive or AC list.
--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, the WHATWG is an unincorporated association,
> > cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association. As such, it does
> not
> > enjoy the status of being a leg
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, the WHATWG is an unincorporated association,
> cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association. As such, it does not
> enjoy the status of being a legal entity.
Maybe not, but this is very legally real:
"© Copyrigh
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> > On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> >> It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as
> >> to which spec they cite regardless of the
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as
>> to which spec they cite regardless of the reason.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > And one of the role of the W3C staff is
On 8/5/2011 7:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group. S
On 2011-08-05 17:22, Ian Hickson wrote:
They're errors. Some of the text in the HTML WG specs is actually
self-contradictory, other parts of it are gramatically incorrect, there
a) File bugs.
b) Fix the grammar errors, if you think they are harmful. You are the
editor.
are decisions that c
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:52 -0400, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> I'm aware of public-script-coord, and think WG-to-WG coordination is
> definitely more efficient for technical matters. I assumed (perhaps
> incorrectly) existing relations between working groups across
> organizations (e.g. W3C/IETF)
On 8/5/11 2:19 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 13:41 -0400, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
If there is somethin
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 13:41 -0400, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >>> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
> >> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C s
On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as to which
spec they cite regardless of the reason.
>
> And one of the role of the W3C staff is to ensure proper coordination
> between the various Working Groups at the W3C. I'm po
On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like
a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or som
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>>
>> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems
>> like a valid reason (e.g.,
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>
> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems
> like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept).
Agreed, but no on
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:32 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
> > > does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? Ther
On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:50, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>> Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
>>> specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An e
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>>
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to H
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:32 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >
> > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
> > does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
> > in the WHATWG version that got reject
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>
> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
> does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
> in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group. See
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/spe
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 15:51 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:50:35 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > What does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group?
>
> It means we are consistent with their work:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-diff-20110525/#refe
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:50:35 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
What does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group?
It means we are consistent with their work:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-diff-20110525/#references
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of tho
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
> > specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
> > Progress Events. This is done for
On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I
can tell. This undermines and is
Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more
specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is
Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I
can tell. This undermines and is disrespectful the work of the HTML
Working Group. Un
49 matches
Mail list logo
