PUBLIC MARKS with tags "WHAT Task Force" & hixie

The truth is it has always been this way with the WHATWG. As Shelly, John and others elsewhere have pointed out, this has happened a bunch of times before. This is par for the course. It’s not a “WHATWG” issue so much as it is an “Ian Hickson” issue. Ian has done a lot of (commendable) hard work getting the HTML spec into better shape over the years, but the fact of the matter is he makes very strange decisions too. He’s not there because he builds websites, or because he has a good relationship with the community, or that he follows his own processes (ha!), or he’s good at taking a consensus view, or anything like that. He’s there because the W3C failed so badly with HTML (see: XHTML 2.0), and Hickson editing the spec worked for vendors. Not you.

La WHAT Task Force n'a jamais été faite pour le Web, c'est juste une coalition des anti-Internet Explorer.

this note is against the IETF common practice, so we invite Ian to

remove it.

Ian Hickson : l'Anelka de la spécification.

Ian's arguments are entirely based on browser behavior, when it

suits him, and entirely based on speculation when it doesn't.

We have had several discussions on terminology and language

definition for which he has shown no interest in consistency.

We have argued about URI and URL algorithms for which his claim

of browser implementation has turned out to be utterly false.

We are still arguing about the definition of Content-Language

as a pragma in HTML5, even though that definition is technically

wrong, not implemented by the majority of browsers let alone

any of the thousand or so content management systems, actively

harmful to deployed content, disagrees with the normative

MIME and HTTP definitions, breaks the principle of orthogonality

that is core to Web architecture, and even manages to misuse

the term "pragma" for something that is very clearly metadata.

Euh... dtg ?