W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

Clarification of "Extensibility" section (Was: Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:06:52 +0200
Message-ID: <505A41FC.3080505@kosek.cz>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 19.9.2012 22:33, Paul Cotton wrote:

> We encourage discussion of this draft plan in response to this email.  We will also add this item to the respective agendas of the next meetings of the HTML WG, the Accessibility Task Force and the PF WG. 

Hi,

modularity and extension specs are proposed as instrument how to move
forward with HTML5.

I think that current section "2.2.3 Extensibility" will benefit from
additional and more explicit statements which will clarify conformance
of document using elements/attributes from extensions spec.

Given the current wording cited in
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#extension-specs
I don't know whether document using attribute "foo" defined in some
extension spec can be conforming HTML5 document:

"... if the syntax and semantics of a given conforming HTML5 document
document is unchanged by the use of applicable specification(s), then
that document remains a conforming HTML5 document..."

My reading and understanding is that document containg attribute "foo"
defined in FooML applicable specification can't be conforming HTML5
document because "foo" attribute is not defined in the core HTML5 and
thus is not conforming to HTML5 syntax.

If this is intent then I see problem here -- documents using markup
defined in extension specifications will be non-conforming HTML5, they
should be as such marked by validator -- as a result extension
specification will not be true first-class citizens.

Or if document containing attributes/elements not defined in the core
HTML5 spec can be conforming HTML5, then from where such allowed
attributes/elements came from? Allowing anything is clearly not the
intention, except we want large backdoor for extensibility.

I think that this needs to be clarified. There is a large group of users
for which validoty/conformance matters and it should be clear what is
and what is not conforming HTML5 document.

Thanks,

				Jirka




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------


Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC