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

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Edition for Web Authors as First Public Working Draft

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:45:39 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=fcvoUABc-51azEDJs4mKbjyKqmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Chairs have reviewed the responses to the CfC. There was much discussion. This include objections to publishing this draft as normative and objections to not publishing this draft as normative. No one seems to object to publishing the draft at all. In the end, the addition of the following text to the Status of the Document section seems to address all of the conditional objections:
>>>
>>> "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."
>>
>> Surely this doesn't include differences where the full HTML5
>> specification defines behavior where the Web Authors document leaves
>> behavior undefined, right? As that will be quite common given the
>> large amount of normative text which only appears in the full
>> specification. The above text does not address how such differences
>> should be handled.
>
> Hi Jonas,
>
> A week ago you approved this exact text: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0198.html>. Is this an issue you only now thought of?
>
> Note that the new text would be in addition to the draft's existing status text, so in total, it would say:
>
>>>> "This document is a strict subset of the HTML5 specification that omits user-agent (UA) implementation details. It is targeted toward Web authors and others who are not UA implementors and who want an informational view of the HTML specification that focuses more precisely on details relevant to using the HTML language to create Web documents and Web applications. Because this document does not provide implementation conformance criteria, UA implementors should not rely on it, but should instead refer to the full HTML5 specification.
>>>>
>>>> This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."
>
> I believe this makes totally clear that omissions of UA implementation requirements are deliberate, and the full HTML5 spec of course takes precedence since it is the only one to say anything. Other omissions that result in disagreement on normative matters concerning Web Authors would be redaction errors, and while the HTML5 spec still takes precedence, these should also be reported as bugs.
>
> Does this sufficiently address your objection?

Sorry, my bad, I missed a few critical words of my reading. This text
is ok to me.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 22:46:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:25 UTC