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

Re: Should we Publish a Language Specification?

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:59:01 +0000
Message-ID: <49257B35.2020902@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>



Dean Edridge wrote:

> Philip TAYLOR continues:

>> I am arguing in favour
>> of a first, normative,
> 
> If it is normative then it is going to conflict with what the spec says. 
> If it's not normative it's going to clash with the authoring guide.

I don't think I'm expressing myself poorly,
and I can't think that you are failing to
understand what I'm saying, so I don't know
how to explain the confusion : Mike's draft
represents a start at writing a definitive
(normative) specification for the HTML 5
language; the present draft specification is
an infinitely more complex document that seeks
not only to define the language but a great
deal more besides.  The idea is that this latter
draft specification should be /replaced/ by a
number of simpler, more tightly focussed,
specifications, of which Mike's would become
one.  Once you accept that premise (and accepting
it doesn't mean agreeing with it, simply
accepting what is meant by it), the concept
of a "clash" can no longer arise.

> Philip TAYLOR continues:

>> ...language specification,
>> towards which Mike's draft is an superb start.
> 
> I don't actually think that Mike should have started it.

Why not ?  I see it as one of the most significant contributions
to the work of this group to emerge so far, and even if there
were aspects of it with which I personally disagreed, I would
have no hesitation in voting in favour of its publication
(unlike previous proposals to publish the draft specification).

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 15:00:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:25 GMT