W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:29:47 +0000
Message-ID: <20090811202947.tho083bhs0404ogw@staff.opera.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Quoting Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> If we are carefully writing the HTML5 standard so that it provides
>>> browser interoperability and some other working group willfully violates
>>> parts of the HTML5 standard, I would expect that we would take issue
>>> with that.
>>
>> If some other working group contradicts parts of HTML5 because HTML5 is
>> wrong, then I wouldn't take issue, I'd fix HTML5. Unfortunately other
>> groups haven't always had quite the same commitment to documenting what
>> implementations do.
>
> I agree, in principle, with the statement you've made above. I
> understand that some other groups have not been as vigilant as WHAT WG
> in documenting what implementations actually do - and I think that
> should be a strong consideration when determining if a specification is
> actually working out in the field.
>
> We cannot, however, willfully break other specifications without there
> being blowback. For example, here's what I'm asserting happened with
> @summary:

It is worth noting that the @summary issue is not related to the issue  
of cross-spec contradictions because WCAG 2.0 only references @summary  
in a non-normative techniques note that explicitly scopes itself to  
HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.x. Whilst there may have been approaches to the  
issue that would have resulted in more rapid progress than we have  
seen, it is not a good example of a spec-wise conflict.
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 20:30:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC