W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:24:46 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0803311824q2f8776d2t282bbb2135ea8798@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Ultimately, what does using the language 'required' mean anyway?  Are HTML5
user agents _required_ to support both serializations, for instance?  Some
browser vendors are still going to pick and choose the things they want to
support anyway... I get the impression that being a 'fully conformant' HTML5
user agent is not as important as meeting demands of the customers.

> We can encourage, but that's as far as we can go when it comes to
> things that aren't strictly required for interoperability.

But isn't this an interoperability problem?  Existing SVG editors do not
accept an HTMLized form of SVG.

Seems like if we require browsers to support some mechanism to obtain the
full DOM serialization of the document, then we've solved the concerns of
tools being able to read in the HTML-serialization of XML languages.  You
don't need to worry about xmlns attributes, strict casing, unquoted
attributes, closing elements in the HTML serialization - all this would be
covered by exporting the DOM (which is essentially the XML serialization).
As someone that wants to share SVG snippets across web documents, I would be
very happy with this, though it would take some education for the general
populace interested in doing some of these things.

This doesn't have to be a button, it can be in the context menu or under
View somewhere, for instance.

Jeff

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:
> >
> > Why not a conditional requirement along the lines of, "If a UA is allow
> > interactivity and access to the source of a document, it must provide
> > access to a full DOM serialization of the document, and may provide
> > access to the raw document (pre-parsing)."  Not suggesting that actual
> > wording, of course, just the general intent.
>
> Because, as much as we would like to require UI, it isn't strictly
> required for interoperability, and thus it is not our position to require
> it. We can encourage, but that's as far as we can go when it comes to
> things that aren't strictly required for interoperability.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 01:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT