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

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:00:41 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0901281100v191776d1kc758de1339b7f48d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Philip TAYLOR
<Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> Rather, the question is why this specification needs to be normative given
>> that it contains the same information as the HTML 5 specification already
>> does.
>
> Is the simple answer to this question not just
> "because if it is non-normative, it is of no use" ?

So would you say that the documents Dan and Lachlan have produced is
of no use since they are informative?

> If I, as a professional webmaster, need to know how
> I must express myself in HTML 5 in order for my
> document(s) to be valid, there is no point my looking
> at a document that is simply informative

Really? Does the same thing apply for other languages that you author
content for? If you were to write a C program, would you go to the
ANSI C99 spec? Or would you pick up a book or read a web tutorial.

When you write a perl program, do you read the Pod documentation, or
do you go read the perl source code (which as far as I can tell is the
only thing resembling a spec for Perl5-)

In my experience only experts in a language ever go look at the
specification. They are simply too detailed to give non-experts enough
of a high-level view that the information can be consumed. Non-experts
tend to go to other resources that provides easier-to-consume
information.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 19:01:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC