On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 11/09/2014 00:14 , Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
>> status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process.
>>
>
> This is blatant trolling as well as factually wr
Hi Domenic,
I agree with everything that you have said.
I would like to follow your lead in offering a way forward towards a
resolution here.
Before I dive into the details, however, I would like to offer a mode of
work. We can talk and talk and talk about the details until we're all
blue i
On 11/09/2014 00:14 , Glenn Adams wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process.
This is blatant trolling as well as factually wrong in every single
statement that it makes.
I would invite all o
It could be worse! After 15 years and a handful of vendor
implementations over the years, neither W3C nor WHATWG have simple
microphone upload in forms. There's
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/ of course, which has been almost
there since around 2007, but still doesn't say what "capture control
On 9/10/14, 6:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
and they do not follow a consensus process.
Glenn, with all due respect, neither do many W3C specifications. Case
in point is http://www.w3.org/TR/navigation-timing/ which managed to get
to REC while ignoring feedback that pointed out that not a single
(public-webapps and www-tag to bcc, +cc public-w3cproc...@w3.org. sorry
about the earlier mistake)
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>> WHATWG specs are
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
>>
>
> Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
>
If it isn't obvious, I am stating my opinion regarding the matter
, September 11, 2014 00:28
To: Glenn Adams
Cc: Domenic Denicola; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; www-...@w3.org
Subject: Re: publishing new WD of URL spec
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams
mailto:gl...@skynav.com>> wrote:
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
Do yo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs.
>
Do you have a citation to back up this claim?
> Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus
> process.
>
Do you have citations for where this is listed
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Domenic Denicola <
dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> This is a formal objection to the publication of this specification.
This is a formal objection to the publication of this specification.
My arguments against publishing this specification include that copying the
spec from the WHATWG is an unnecessarily combative way of working with another
standards body, especially with regard to the URL Standard wherein we/th
11 matches
Mail list logo
