- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:23:28 +0200
- To: "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:12:56 +0200, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I can certainly see that the WHATWG version of the document should link > to the W3C version, since that is the official standard as issued by a > recognized standards body. However, I see no reason for the reverse, > since anything that is in the WHATWG version will either be already in > the W3C version _OR_ it will be "future stuff". The WHATWG version has several features through the use of JavaScript that the W3C version lacks. It also has a much better license. We're also supposed to work together with the WHATWG community. Having links both ways makes sense. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 19:24:59 UTC