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

Re: "HTML: The Markup Language" (draft attempt an "HTML producers" spec)

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:00:40 +0900
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081114120040.GD8377@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Hi Steven,

> @2008-11-14 09:58 +0000:
> Is this spec intended to be edited independent of the browser spec?

First off, I think it would be a mistake to characterize the
existing HTML5 draft as "the browser spec". Yeah, it does in
part cover browser implementation details, but it also does a lot
more than that. The scope of this "producers" spec is very much
narrower. All that said, it has already been edited independently
from the existing HTML5 draft, if by "edited independently" you
mean having a different person editing it. But it currently aligns
with the HTML5 draft in that it does not specify any conformance
criteria that are at odds with what's in the document. And if we
do choose to go forward it, I think it's clear that ideally we
would not want the two documents to conflict with one another, or
to be completely independent from one another.

> Will this provide an opportunity for the rank and file to shape the content
> without the fianl say being controlled by the editor of the browser spec?

What happens with it will depend on what the group and the chairs
decide. But if we eventually take it -- or some other similar
document -- on as a work item in the group, I suppose that it will
have a different decision-making process behind it that is
necessarily different from the one that's been used with the
existing HTML5 draft -- due to the fact that it will have a
different editor (or multiple editors).

> For example, will there be an opportunity to include advice and references
> to other W3C specifications such as WCAG 2.0 in relation to both normative
> and non normative authoring information?

I personally do not think that the particular way of scoping the
that I used for this draft would lend itself to also including
advice and references to WCAG 2.0. I think that kind of advice and
those kinds of references would be more appropriately handled in
an authoring guide of the kind that Lachlan has been working on.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 12:01:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC