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

Re: ISSUE-59: normative-language-reference FPWD

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0901270103080.952@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I would definitely be opposed to taking a subset that excludes APIs and 
> parsing requirements to CR before the full spec.

Note that Mike's draft wouldn't be such a subset; he has clarified that 
the target audience of his draft is the same as HTML5's target audience, 
and thus excluding APIs and parsing requirements isn't an option for that 
draft (they would be needed to address that audience's needs).


> Even if the documents are edited in lockstep, there is a high risk of 
> contradiction if they spec the same things.

It does seem odd to me that the working group would work on two 
specifications defining the same things -- it seems like a lot of 
duplicated effort.


> It creates needless process headache, and the only benefit seems to be 
> to a small group of technical experts who are able to understand a 
> technical specification but find scripting and implementation 
> requirements distasteful.

As noted above, Mike's draft wouldn't actually benefit that group, since 
it too will need scripting and implementation requirements to address the 
needs of its stated audience.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 01:19:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT