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

Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:53:50 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D48B508-6941-47DA-966C-4E6A21C34115@apple.com>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>


On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Actually, I would call them editorial issues that go to the heart of
> what the WG is supposed to be drafting.  You keep calling this thing
> HTML5 because that's what you started calling it years ago.  I call it
> a browser behavior specification, because that's what I wanted the
> W3C to work on back in 1996.  They are the same specification.
> I agree it is needed, but it has very little to do with defining the
> Hypertext Mark-up Language.  HTML is a data format with a small set
> of default rendering and behavioral semantics.  HTML does not require
> a DOM, support for any specific scripting language, or even  
> stylesheets.
> There are literally hundreds of technologies involved in the Web that
> are orthogonal to HTML -- they are not HTML.  HTML is the mark-up
> language.

The DOM and other features you mention are part of our charter  
deliverables, so it would not make sense to remove them from the spec.

> The problem with publishing it is simply that the title is wrong.
> It will mislead a lot of developers who are looking for a definition
> of HTML and find, instead, a lot of half-baked ideas about how a
> browser should compose a DOM, reinterpret HTTP, make useless requests,
> and a lot of other things you've added to enshrine browser bugs.
> It is not HTML5 by any stretch of the imagination.

We already made a group decision that the spec title would be HTML5.  
The vote was overwhelmingly in favor. We could certainly revisit that  
old decision, but I seriously doubt it would go the other way. I don't  
think it is reasonable to hold the FPWD hostage to getting your way on  
the title.

> Call it "Uniform Browser Behavior for the Web" and my informal
> objection is waived.

As an aside, I don't think your proposed title is accurate. The spec  
covers many conformance classes besides browsers, including documents,  
editors, validators, and non-browser implementations. If you wanted to  
call it "HTML Syntax, Semantics and Behavior for Browsers, Documents,  
Editors, Validators, and Other Implementations 5", then that would be  
accurate but I think pretty long-winded.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 22:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC