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

stopping discussions on serializations and contributing constructively

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:45:09 -0500
Message-Id: <7EB56DCA-8539-4A82-A556-E008F942538E@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>

On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Smylers wrote:
> Dan Connolly writes:
>> I encouraged some discussion in this thread as input to the editor of
>> "HTML5 differences from HTML4", but I think it's time to bring this
>> thread to a close.  The editor has considered these suggestions;  
>> we're
>> starting to repeat ourselves and get into tangents.
> Obviously that ends the discussion on the HTML source of that  
> particular
> document.  Do you also want us to stop the discussion on the wider
> issues that have come out of this thread ("tangents", if you like)?

Smylers, rather than throwing out straw man arguments, it would be  
better to find actual posts that reflect the sentiment  you're  
arguing against.

> For example, there've been proposals that the non-HTML should require
> closing tags, or quotes round attributes,which would be significant
> changes from the current spec.  Is it still OK to discuss these
> proposals?

I don't think anyone expressed that. Some have suggested permitting  
authors to use a very XML-like syntax for the text/html  
serialization. Others have said the current "draft" already permits  
that. (though I would say it could make that clearer)

> And there have been claims that XHTML is preferred over HTML, which is
> not reflected by the current spec, which says:
>   Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use  
> XML on
>   the Web, because XML has much stricter syntax rules than the "HTML5"
>   variant described above, and is relatively newer and therefore less
>   mature.

This is not from the current "spec". This is from the current  
"draft": which is what we're all here to work on. You can't cite the  
current "draft" as evidence that proposals would conflict with  
current standards. That's entirely counter-productive.

Again, however, no one has expressed anything about guiding authors  
to to prefer XML over text/html. You're misreading these comments.  
Suggestions  have been floated to permit (and not deprecate or  
discourage) authors to use XML-like syntax for the text/html  

One way to reduce the traffic on the list would be to stop these  
straw man and knee-jerk  arguments entirely. When posting a reply  
consider whether you're post will shape the conversation in a  
positive way. If you're posting to just register your opposition to  
statements without constructively shaping the discussion, just choose  
not to comment.

Take care,
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 23:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC