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

Re: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:06:00 -0800
Message-ID: <4920D188.6030904@sicking.cc>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-html@w3.org

Robert J Burns wrote:
> HI Boris,
> 
> On Nov 16, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>>> The key thing is that we would be able to make the draft(s) serve the 
>>> needs of users and authors and not only a few browser implementors.
>>
>> Good luck getting consensus on any of that, then.  Or better yet, 
>> implementations...
>>
>> Note that the draft(s) do need to serve all three constituencies, but 
>> they also need to be implementable.  The other option, of course, is 
>> to retrace the steps of XHTML2.
> 
> Again, you're creating false dichotomies. I never once suggested that 
> the parsing should be done in a way that in not implementable or doesn't 
> serve the implementor constituency What I'm saying is that parsing should:
> 
> 1) be compatible with existing content
> 2) improved to allow for forward migration
> 3) abstracted from the HTML vocabulary (markup vocabulary and DOM) and 
> the browser behavior (what browsers do with the objects created 
> according to the specified vocabulary once parsed).

Excellent! We all agree. If you look at the HTML5 spec that is done. 
There are separate chapters in the HTML5 spec for the vocabulary and the 
parsing.

So if all that the TAG is requesting then I think we are done.

> The presumption you're conveying is that these first two cannot be done 
> simultaneously, and that's simply not true

I'm not sure who is claiming that. In any case they are wrong, the HTML5 
spec is a clear proof of that.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 02:07:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC