- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:28:39 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Mar 22, 2007, at 23:22, Dan Connolly wrote: > OK, so the IRC office hours experiment went a little > better than the email brainstorming experiment. > I'm keeping an issues list/agenda; it covers > some of the highlights from IRC as well as recent email, > and has pointers to the full log of the IRC chat. > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16 I'd like to add a policy suggestion item: The WG should not designate normative schemata. Rationale: Schema languages cannot express all the conformance requirements that the WG's spec can be expected to have (see http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ thesis/html5-conformance-checker.xhtml#non-schema and http://hsivonen.iki.fi/thesis/html5-conformance-checker.xhtml#more- non-schema for discussion). The experience with HTML 4 suggests that designating a normative schema causes people to use it and to ignore the machine-checkable conformance criteria that the schema does not embody. To avoid that kind of situation, it would be better not to designate a normative schema and instead consider schemata implementation details just like one would consider particular lines of C++ implementation details. As precedent, the Atom WG of the IETF did publish a schema, but it was informative. In addition, not endorsing schemata as normative is the WHATWG's current policy. There is a non-normative schema project for HTML5. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 09:29:05 UTC