W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Friction and cross pollination

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:08:35 +0200
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-Id: <00FAC7AB-B2F2-423A-A214-57E653D22F38@berjon.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On Sep 27, 2011, at 15:57 , Norman Walsh wrote:
> Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> writes:
>> Finally, so far no one has seemed to care the least bit about it, but
>> I'll mention it one last time just in case :) I think that there could
>> be some value in working on points of friction when crossing XML/HTML
>> environment boundaries, as well as on cross-pollination (see
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/C201A791-AD3C-4CC7-BDEE-B44EE2706A3F@berjon.com).
>> I'm perfectly fine with that notion not going into the report if
>> everyone just yawns at it, but I do stick by the idea that looking at
>> stuff "on the other side" as if it might be usefully transferrable
>> mutatis mutandis is more productive than considering that everything
>> linked to a given technology is necessarily stupid and needs to be
>> reinvented in as perfect as possible ignorance of any precedent.
> 
> I think it's a good idea. I don't think we've talked about it enough
> to work out what there might be consensus enough about to put in the
> document.
> 
> Robin, would you be willing to try to draft a few paragraphs that you
> think cover the topic? We can talk about that and, if we reach
> consensus, figure out how to put it in the document.

Sure, I'll try to draft something inside of a week. Do we have a tracker instance? If not it doesn't matter, I'll just write it down on paper.

John Cowan wrote:
>> I strongly agree here.  The HTML5 rules work because they reflect what
>> parsers actually do.  We have no experience with parsing ill-formed
>> XML, and no way to say what the correct rules would be.  Talk of a WG is
>> wildly premature.  I would prefer something very vague about "further
>> investigation".
> 
> Fair enough. I didn't really intend to imply the creation of a working
> group (despite my choice of words!) and I'll soften that language. (I
> was only trying to underscore the fact that *we* weren't the right
> group to do the job and so readers shouldn't be looking to us to
> produce such a document.)

Oh, if the goal is to make sure we don't end up with having to do the work of defining HTML5 then use whatever language you think will get that across ;)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:09:01 GMT