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

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

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:52:15 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560705021452y2ec2f489rba1f5973b8b8b03f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, tina@greytower.net, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org

On 5/1/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> > Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> >> This seems to be the source of contention in the current debate.
> >> For the spec to be implementable, it needs to define conformance
> >> requirements for UAs, including error handling and how to handle
> >> both existing and future content.

> > Perhaps if those implementation conformance constraints were
> > defined in a separate specification, it would help to clearly
> > divide the issue?

> ... it is essential that the two match up when
> they overlap.

Would it resolve some of the acrimony if the document were split into
two clearly marked specifications

(1)  HTML 5.0 Language Specification
(2)  HTML 5.0 User Agent Error Processing Specification

(Whether to make them two separate documents, or just two different
classes to be used on adjacent sections -- I suppose would depend on
how tightly the two specifications were interwoven.)

The language could stay pure.  It would be clear (at least to people
who cared) which parts of the language were "correct", and which were
merely "historical notes documented to aid browser implementors".

Someone who wanted to write a validator (or a demo browser) could
speed development by explicitly supporting only correct markup,
instead of picking a hodge-podge of features at random.

-jJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:52:31 GMT

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