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

Re: HTML interpreter vs. HTML user agent

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:58:30 -0400
Message-ID: <4A1FCDE6.50808@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
>> If those set of rules are meant to only apply to browsers, and
>> appear in a document labeled as a browser behavior specification,
>> then all concerns go away.  If those set of rules are meant to
>> apply to everybody, then the discussion needs to move to the IETF,
>> and the content in that section will likely look markedly different
>> once that process is complete.
> 
> Feed processors deal with processing HTML content as well. Why is it
> fine to do that part at the W3C, but not the content sniffing part?
> Both equally apply to everybody. Why would it be fine to do the
> sniffing part at the W3C if scoped to browsers?

How about I simply retract my assertion "needs to move to IETF", replace
it with an observation "the current plan is that this moves to the
IETF".  To me, personally, and on this particular issue: the difference
between the organizations isn't the interesting question, I'm more
interested in the content of the standard that would be produced.

As to whether or not everybody will accept that the rules written in
HTML5 apply to everybody, I submit the following as a test case:

http://status.aws.amazon.com/rss/EC2API.rss

Heck, it is not clear to me that *browsers* will accept that that 
particular rule applies to them.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 11:59:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC