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

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

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:38:52 +0000
Message-ID: <475058BC.5030802@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
CC: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>



James Graham wrote:

> T.V Raman wrote:

>> Lets just say that I continue to be sceptical about there
>> existing a language definition for authors. And as others have
>> stated, some kind of tutorial does not a language definition make.
> 
> OK, let me be more specific. I suggest that the information required to 
> "tell me how to write my document correctly" is in section 3 [1] and 
> section 8.1 [2] of the current specification. Can you be more specific 
> about why you believe I am wrong?
> 
> [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#semantics
> [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#writing0

Maybe because the third line of your first reference
states "This section is non-normative" ?  A /language
definition/ must be normative, otherwise it is not
a definition but is at best a tutorial.  Cf. "Revised
Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 68"
v. "Informal Introduction to ALGOL 68".  The first
is a /language definition/, the second is an informal
guide to the language.

I, like many other contributors to this thread,
would like to see the language definition factored
out; there is little (read: zero) point in discussing
exactly how an element should be processed until such
time as the group are agreed that such an element
should exist at all.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 18:39:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:10 GMT