W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:20:31 +0900
Message-ID: <461CE09F.8070203@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Geoffrey Sneddon schreef:
> On 11 Apr 2007, at 13:49, Laurens Holst wrote:
>> Geoffrey Sneddon schreef:
>>>> You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the
>>>> step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative
>>>> ways to move forward.
>>>
>>> I'm equally interested to hear about alternatives: plenty of people 
>>> have already quite clearly stated that starting from HTML 4.01 is 
>>> near unworkable, due to how vague it is, and nobody has put forward 
>>> any other possible starting point.
>>
>> As this is the second time I hear someone say that no alternatives 
>> have been offered, I’d like to refer to my earlier message where I 
>> suggested two other approaches:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0085.html
>>
>> I think both are based on the idea of cutting up the WHATWG’s specs a 
>> little, the first doing a quick review for patents and then copying 
>> over everything that’s not ‘dangerous’ and keeping the remainder in a 
>> separate ‘sandbox’ for more in-depth review; the second cutting up 
>> the spec in smaller ‘units’ that can be discussed and integrated into 
>> the specification one by one.
>
> In my view these are really just the same, they're both using the 
> WHATWG's specs as a starting point (albeit probably with some changes). 

I do not see why you would consider these alternative approaches ‘the 
same’ as the OP of this thread.

The first takes the WHATWG as a basis, but conditionally. The second 
takes the WHATWG as a basis for discussion, but does not copy anything 
over verbatim, only the results of the discussion will end up in the 
spec. If this discussion happens to agree on the current wording in the 
WHATWG spec, only then is it copied over.

Anyway, you ask about alternatives, I gave a couple in this post from a 
couple of weeks ago. They try to find a middle ground between adopting 
the WHATWG specs 1:1 and not adopting them. Obviously disregarding the 
WHATWG spec entirely and starting from scratch can not be considered a 
real alternative.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.


Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 13:22:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC