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

Re: "Technical specification"

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:00:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4A1596D5.7050102@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I was using the term "Technical Specification" in the RFC 2026 (IETF BCP 
>> 9) section 3 sense, see thread starting with 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Dec/0105.html.
>> I think it was a good discussion, and helped clarify the role of 
>> traditional language specifications vs. documents that mandate 
>> implementation behavior.
> The conclusion of that thread appears to be:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Dec/0127.html
> ...which as far as I can tell you did not respond to, so I presume you 
> agree with it. If so, it seems strange that you would suddenly go back to 
> saying that HTML5 is not a "Technical Specification" or that it should be 
> one. What exactly is your position here? I don't understand.

That's one interpretation to the lack of response.  There are at least 
four other potential interpretations:


> Furthermore, as Anne says, as far as I can tell HTML5 meets the 
> definitions of both TS and AS as described by RFC2026, and I don't see 
> how this has anything to do with the title anyway.


Error handling, in general, has ample precedence in Technical 
Specifications at the W3C.  I'd like to suggest that we move on from 
discussing error handling in the abstract and look at specific cases 
where error handling defined in the current working draft are an issue.

Personally, I feel that error handling is a necessary part of HTML5. 
While not formally assessed, my read is that I am far from alone in this 
perception.  I also get the feeling that much, if not all, of the 
remaining issues could be addressed via proper labeling up front of the 
intent and scope of the document to follow.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 18:01:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:45 UTC