- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 22:34:51 +1000
- 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 UTC