- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:37:24 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> Of course, it would be easier to publish the spec right >> away if the spec took a much more conservative position on >> issues such as videoaudio, immediate-mode-graphics, and >> offline-applications-sql. >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2 > > I think those areas are possibly the most important areas of the > specification. If we removed them, we would be making ourselves > irrelevant, as the community would instead refer to the WHATWG HTML5 draft > for the definitions of those features The way you portray this issue is a bit too binary for my tastes. Why is "the" (as in one and only) specification the only document in which this information can make it onto a W3C site? I've seen several specifications which are spread across volumes. Can't different volume in a series be in different states at any given time? - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 17:37:55 UTC