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

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0811230330350.19276@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Jim Jewett wrote:
>
> [...] if I as an author (or the writer of a simple authoring tool) just 
> want to embed a video with default video look and feel, default 
> controls, etc ... similar to what I get today with object ... I don't 
> see why I would need to know anything about the HTMLMediaElement 
> scripting API.
> 
> So leaving that in a separate processing spec seems perfectly 
> reasonable; the processing spec would depend on the markup semantics 
> spec, but the dependency would be in only one direction.

This would be a very weird split ("vocabulary" vs "DOM and processing 
requirements"), with, to my knowledge, no precedent.

Why should authors that don't write script be somehow segregated from 
authors that do write script? Why should implementors have to read two 
specifications to work out how to implement one feature?

What about authors who want to write documents with no images? Surely they 
don't need to know anything about <img>; does that mean we should have a 
spec without <img> too?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 23 November 2008 03:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:26 GMT