On 2012-07-20 22:18, Ian Hickson wrote:
(responding on www-archive since, as mentioned in the original e-mail, the
WHATWG list is for technical discussions, not political ones)
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Steve Faulkner wrote:
I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
"The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical appears to imply
that the requirements and advice contained within HTML the living
standard is more correct than what is in the HTML5 specification.
What I meant was just that the highest priority in the WHATWG spec is in
making a spec that describes what is implemented, rather than what anyone
wishes was implemented.
Both the W3C HTML spec and the WHATWG spec describe things that are not
implemented. Actually, the WHATWG spec seems to contain *more* of that.
...
Best regards, Julian
