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

Rethinking HTML 5 (Was: Re: Semicolon after entities)

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:01:52 +0200 (CEST)
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
cc: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <tkrat.fccd93af9df17dfb@greytower.net>

On  1 May, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

>> The spec authors looked at what browsers supported, documented it,
>> and called it a standard.
> 
> Could you please explain how you think the process should work?

    "This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to
     the HTML specification."

  I'm sure you recognise the quote.

  So lets do just that. Start with the currently HTML 4.01 Strict, and
  /revise/ it. Take out the cruft. Add ideas from WA1 and ideas from
  everyone else that wish to participate. Everyone else. As has been said
  before, we should consider the /quality/ of the work, not the /source/.

  The www-html mailing list is explicitly set up for, and I quote the
  description: 

    "Technical discussion among those interested in enhancing the
     Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)"

  It would be a mystery why, and again I quote, but this time Ian
  Hickson:

    "This mailing list is mostly ignored by most members
     of the HTML working group."

  If the HTML working group is truly ignoring a mailing-list set up by
  the W3C with the specific topic "those interested ... enhancing ...
  HTML", then I suggest the HTML WG may need to review its policies - in
  particular in light of the fact, as has been pointed out by several
  other participants, that not everyone /can/ join the WG.

  The www-html mailing-list is clearly a point-of-call for people with
  an interest in the principal language used on the WWW, but who cannot,
  for one reason or another, get more deeply involved. /Why/ would it be
  ignored?

  The answer is that it shouldn't. /All/ views should be taken aboard,
  considered, and discussed.

  And then a draft should be produced; an /incremental/ revision of what
  exist today. Through more work, and more discussion, it should be
  refined before a specification is produced; a specification that all
  parties should /respect/ and adhere to.

  No more willy-nillying by authors, browser vendors, or writers of
  'wysiwyg' tools. Resurrect the WIP, if anyone believe that'll help.




>>   In other words the WG is to study, and document, both good and bad
>>   practices of browsers and authors today, and tailor the specification
>>   to allow them?
>
> The specification will be tailored to *support* the bad things, which 
> browsers are required to do regardless of what the spec says.  However, 
> the spec will not necessarily allow such things in conforming documents.

  The specification will /support/ bad ideas, but not /allow/ bad ideas?

  That doesn't make sense. Sorry for being blunt here - but no. No, and
  no again. We've been at this for over a week, and it's getting us
  nowhere.

  The /specification of a markup language/ should /not/ "support" bad
  practice. /Browsers/ should support bad practice. We don't want the
  web to be "broken", after all.

  Right /now/, however, the argument is that since the web contain bad
  practice, so should the specification. That's silly, and something I
  certainly hope the WG at large will dismiss.


     The HTML WG should follow its charter and, with input taken
     from as many interested parties as possible and starting
     with 4.01 Strict, produce an incremental revision of HTML.


  That's the best - and last - advice I can offer.

-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC