What's wrong with a new RFC? Does every spec now have to suffer from this horrible approach to spec writing? url.spec.whatwg.org/

Oct 13, 2012 · 8:23 PM UTC

3
7
3
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov Who came up with the idea that creating imperative instructions in specifications was better than the normal declarative approach?
1
@darrel_miller I believe that's Hixie's HTML 5 approach
1
more replies
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @james_clark RFCs are request for engineering politics & debate where ever applicable(almost everywhere).
@karlpro for HTML5, separate content spec from processing spec. for URLs, write processing spec alone. /cc: @darrel_miller @stilkov
@karlpro I have no issue with them creating a "web platform" spec. It's just not within the scope of HTML, IMO. /cc @stilkov @mamund
@karlpro Yes, I understand interoperabilty is important for all of us. But separation of concerns is important /cc @stilkov @mamund
@karlpro I just don't understand how browsing contexts, history traversal, dialog boxes, printing, etc can be included /cc @mamund @stilkov
@karlpro I definitely see the value of those topics. I just wish they could be treated independently of the HTML media type specification.
@karlpro Agreed. And I do appreciate the "us/them" comment, it's an easy trap to fall into and not constructive.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov suppose whatwg aims at taking over IESG's role in the end. Suggest a new web tcp/ip spec!