- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:46 +0200
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> If you don't make the processing requirements normative, then UAs can >>> just implement whatever they like and claim conformance. That >>> doesn't help anyone at all, it just leaves us with the same situation >>> we're in now. We're trying to fix the problem, not just ignore it. >> >> If the processing requirements are written and agreed upon, and >> implemented by Apple/MS/Mozilla/Opera, it really makes no difference >> in practice what normative status they have. > > Good specifications must contain normative requirements. > > http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 > >> What's *essential* is that an author of a *conforming* document can >> rely on a well-defined behavior. If an author chooses to produce >> non-conforming documents, that's her/his choice. > > No, what is essential is that users who visit web sites, regardless of > whether the site is conforming or not, can rely on it rendering in their > browser, the same as it would in any other. It seems to me that it would be great if there was a common understanding of what exactly the WG is supposed to specify. IMHO...: (1) What a conforming HTML5 document is, and how it is processed by a conforming user agent. (2) Parsing and processing requirements for non-conforming documents. If we do not distinguish between these, we are essentially defining a *single* language (yes, "tag soup"), and the notion of "conforming document" is meaningless in practice. It seems to me that many over here *want* to make this distinction meaningless. In which case I'm asking for to be at least clear about that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 09:45:18 UTC