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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:10:07 -0700
Message-Id: <BD2F7BA4-2A86-457F-ADC3-66F4ABFBBBE0@apple.com>
Cc: hyatt@apple.com, roger@456bereastreet.com, public-html@w3.org
To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>


On May 1, 2007, at 2:45 PM, T.V Raman wrote:

>
> I'm not making hand-waving assertions -- my fingers are on my
> keyboard as I type.
>
> The feedback you're receiving loud and clear from me and many
> others is that the balance has gone too far toward the extreme of
> defining html5 as a language that is the union of all markup
> constructs seen on the Web.

Saying that the document strikes the wrong balance in splitting  
conformance requirements for producers and consumers is very  
different from claiming it does not do it at all. Adjusting the  
balance is no big deal, we just need specific suggestions of what  
content should be made nonconforming. Some of the few specific  
suggestions made so far (such as removing <b> and <i> from  
conformance) you would probably disagree with.

> I rest my case by pointing at the size of the document ---

I don't see how that is indicative of your claim in any way. Much of  
the size is due to conformance requirements for user agents, as well  
as due to much more specific conformance requirements for user agents.

Also: the HTML 4.01 spec is 375 pages printed and the HTML DOM Level  
2 spec is 171 pages printed, for a total of 546 pages. The Web Apps  
1.0 draft, which aims to replace both, is currently at 260 pages  
printed. This is not entirely a fair comparison since the spec is not  
finished. But I would say being less than half the size of the last  
version's spec is not good evidence that the spec has too much in it.

> for particular examples, see the thread about table structure that
> was used on this list  as an argument for dismissing having any
> kind of formal description for the  language.

You don't think it's good for the spec to define table structure  
requirements for documents? Would you like it to be less strict about  
conforming table structure than it currently is? This seems contrary  
to your call for more strictness for content producers.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 22:10:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT