- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:58:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7546 --- Comment #4 from Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> 2009-09-13 03:58:44 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Do we not inevitably need some sort of infoset to define elements/attributes > for both HTML and XHTML, as well as to define the tree the parser creates? I > can see no way to define parsing without having some sort of tree model to > parse to, and creating an infoset that is not DOM will likely alienate more > readers, as many are familiar with DOM through its presence in scripting. > You may be correct in all these statements; but, as far as I understand them, they don't seem to relate directly to my suggestion. And I can't help noting that it's somewhat ironic that you are using language (infoset, tree model) that I'm only marginally familiar with to explain why HTML authors will be presented with HTML5 that is largely incomprehensible to them unless they learn new programming languages. Putting this in my own terms, which have allowed me to write HTML/CSS for many years without the DOM: doesn't a browser encounter code on the page, and then make a model internally and execution decisions based on what it finds in that code? And isn't that code either pure markup, or a mix of markup and scripting (javascript)? But in either case, the model the browser makes is just a single model -- "infoset?" --. I have no argument with that. And I don't think it relates to the issue raised in this bug that mixing an expanded DOM terminology throughout the specification, in among the markup terminology, is like handing someone a Fortran manual and saying "Oh, by the way, we explained a lot of the issues using Python examples, and mixed them in all the way through. You don't mind, do you?" And also, after considering it further (before encountering your comment), I realized that this bug is only a symptom of a much larger problem. So I ask that you indulge me in this slightly awkward situation: I have now spread this issue into another list: it seemed like the TAG list was the correct place to have a discussion at the theoretical level about society's relationship to the new direction taken in HTML 5, and I have posted a longer essay amplifying and extending the ideas from this bug, particularly around monetization of the web. It can be found here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Sep/0028.html I suggest that it might help to read that post before further attempts to discuss the issue raised in this bug. Steven Rowat -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 03:59:03 UTC