I wasn't aware of that repo, thanks.
I suppose if the spec ends up there (and easy to contribute via pull requests), and it's published as an easy-to-link-to html document, it'll effectively be the same.
Hosting the repo under whatwg may still be beneficial though. It increases exposure and discoverability. And may result more contributors, faster triaging of issue reports, responding to pull requests, etc. In any event, it won't change who the editors are. Access can controlled at a repository level.
Tools like bikeshed (or respec) are generic and work outside the org as well (if source-maps is interested in using that format).
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 5:44:11 PM UTC+1, Nick Fitzgerald wrote:
> What advantages would this bring? Why is this better than collaborating on
> the source-map-RFC github repo and this mailing list?
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Krinkle wrote:
> > I'm wondering if the current contributors (especially John Lenz) are
> > interested in maintaining the Source Map standard under the WHATWG
> > umbrella.[..]