- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, May 1, 2007 11:41 am, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On May 1, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: >> Perhaps if those implementation conformance constraints were >> defined in a separate specification, it would help to clearly >> divide the issue? In the case of XHTML 2 the plan was always to >> have an implementors guide that went along with it to provide the >> sort of information I think you are talking about; but without >> confusing the authoring community with a lot of data that, frankly, >> is very domain specific. > > I think it's a mistake to consider document conformance requirements > to be general-purpose and user agent conformance requirements to be > "domain specific". First, it is essential that the two match up when > they overlap. Second, authors generally learn the language from > secondary sources, such as books, articles, tutorials, reference > guides, classes and examples. But none of those things exist for > implementors. So leaving out user agent conformance requirements to > make it easier for authors to read the spec is a bad tradeoff. Why not develop the standard as one document with the assumption that when finalized it will be split into separate documents for Content Authors and Implementors? -Matt
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:45:32 UTC