W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Normative status of author-only view of the HTML5 specification

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:57:42 -0700
Message-ID: <19969.12278.249795.100410@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: nrm@arcanedomain.com
Cc: jonas@sicking.cc, fielding@gbiv.com, jgraham@opera.com, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, public-html@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
1+ on Noah's proposal --- independent of whcih spec one prefers,
it at least gurantees eventual sanity.

Noah Mendelsohn writes:
 > 
 > 
 > On 6/7/2011 5:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
 > > So you are saying then that if they disagree the author view should be
 > > the authoritative? Can we make sure to explicitly state so in the spec
 > > if that is what people agree should be the case?
 > 
 > I wonder whether an alternative would be to state words to the effect: 
 > "These two specifications are generated from common base text and are 
 > intended to be entirely consistent. Both are normative and authoritative. 
 > With respect to any matters on which they (unexpectedly) disagree, there is 
 > a bug in at least one, and neither specification is authoritative with 
 > respect to the point(s) of disagreement. In such cases we expect to resolve 
 > the bug by publishing versions that are changed to be consistent.
 > 
 > I can live with Jonas' proposal, but this seems to me supierior because:
 > 
 > * It's important IMO (and the TAG's) that the author view be normative.
 > 
 > * Given the many important technical details covered only in the full view, 
 > it's equally important that it be normative.
 > 
 > (I'm speaking for myself here, not necessarily for the TAG, though I can of 
 > course check with them if you like).
 > 
 > Noah

-- 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 23:58:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:33 GMT