On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Mike West wrote:
> The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the WHATWG HTML
> spec for the
> "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the Web
> Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3]
The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the WHATWG HTML
spec for the
"set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the Web
Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3] substantially predates
the entire concept of a "settings object", and because the WHATWG
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Mike West wrote:
>
> It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group: does
> WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR?
FWIW, I think the W3C should get out of the business of republishing
WHATWG specifications. It's just adding confusion, especially
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
> there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs. It will not delay
> or hamper
>
> publication or Rec-track advancement, despite the
> occasional misinformed
>
> complaint from someone not aware of the
>
On 09/15/2015 03:26 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote:
there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs. It will not delay
or hamper
publication or Rec-track advancement, despite