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

Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 22:34:51 +1000
Message-ID: <463DCB6B.5040903@lachy.id.au>
To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Philip & Le Khanh wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> FWIW, the deliverables section our charter 
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables does mention:
>>
>>   "A serialized form of such a language using a defined,
>>   non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML'
>>   parsers of existing Web browsers."
>>
>> which sort of addresses that point I think. (Which actually also 
>> addresses all the debate about draconian versus non-draconian handling 
>> come to think of it...)
> 
> But it uses this phrase in the context of deliverables that
> are "in scope", rather than mandated, if my understanding
> of the charter is correct.

Right, but we still do need to actually produce deliverables that are in 
scope.  Producing a deliverable with draconian error handling that is 
largely incompatible with existing browsers would be out of scope.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 12:35:01 GMT

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