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

Re: Perception of HTML5 (was Re: Formal definition of HTML5)

From: Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:33:21 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670704171533q262117a0nc036e68f2789fce4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henrik Dvergsdal" <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

> Strictly speaking, HTML will not be a formal language defined by the
> text in the HTML5 document. It will be a more loosely defined entity,
> ultimately bounded by actual implementations of browsers and checkers.
>

Henrik, this is an open process and you are invited to write your own
schema for HTML5 in whatever formal language you want (or even invent
your own schema/formal language). Instead of asking for more features,
just take it upon yourself to do it. Henri Sivonen built the
conformance checker service himself and was presumedly not asked by
the WHATWG to do it.

Everyone on the list knows why theoretically a formal schema might be
good. Hixie, Henri and other have repeatedly shown that the theory is
limited (ie. DTD validation) and that English prose is just fine. If
you want to convince us of your arguments then just build a schema,
create a web service, and create some good test cases that actually
proves to the group that what you want is useful. Who knowns, you
might come up with something really worthwhile! I'm sure if you do,
the editor will be more than happy to consider putting it into the
spec or could be published as a separate note (once it goes through
the scrutiny of the WG, of course).

If you manage to build a schema that has value beyond giving a silly
validity badge, then I think people would really consider it of value.

Kind regards,
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:33:27 UTC

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