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

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:13:34 +0000
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <8380281C-9CA1-4067-B5A8-A8A420863AF4@googlemail.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On 18 Nov 2008, at 17:17, Mark Baker wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon
> <foolistbar@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Mark Baker wrote:
>>> I skimmed through WF2 forms and certainly saw that a lot of
>>> declarative features are defined in terms of the DOM, e.g. "output",
>>> but that just seems an editorial convenience - or perhaps more
>>> accurately, that as Web & former browser developer, you're just
>>> reusing a tool that you're very familiar with.  I see no reason  
>>> why it
>>> couldn't be defined completely independently of the DOM.
>> What do we gain by defining it independently from the DOM though?  
>> We would
>> end up with a longer spec (in all probability) for what I see as  
>> little
>> gain. There is nothing in HTML5 that requires a DOM to be used,
> When the language is defined in terms of a DOM, and some
> implementation doesn't have one (e.g. authoring tool, spider) , then
> what are its implementers supposed to do?

The same as if it were specified in some object model made up for  
notation within HTML 5: use the equivalent step for whatever model the  
implementation uses. Note that the Python version of html5lib can use  
multiple object models, some of them quite unlike DOM. It is certainly  
far from complicating matters. Using a notation that in known and not  
making up another helps. Any part of the DOM can be represented in any  
other object model (though the complexity may vary).

Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 20:14:17 UTC

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