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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:44:16 -0400
Message-ID: <505B1DB0.2070706@intertwingly.net>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 09:11 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> On 20.9.2012 14:52, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> I encourage you to create one or more bug reports on section 2.2.3 of
>> the HTML5 specification.  For best results, make concrete suggestions on
>> what you would like to see changed.
>
> Sure, I will do that.
>
> But I'm more concerned with the proposed plan now. In section about
> "extension specification" it says:
>
> "... Many extensions recognized as having wide consensus are recognized
> as part of the default settings of the W3C Validator, so they have an
> equal footing in validation..."
>
> Who and how decides which extensions have wide consensus and are enabled
> by default in W3C Validator?

We could make that more formal, but to date that has largely been left 
up to Mike Smith to decide.  The W3C Validator support for HTML5 (and 
extensions) is marked experimental and given that we are encouraging 
experimentation, I don't think that there will be a problem.

> Thanks for clarification,

I'll stop short of per-committing Mike.  Given that you have experience 
with the validator, I encourage you to write necessary schema for the 
extensions you propose.  If you can't reach agreement with Mike, please 
bring that specific disagreement back here.

> 				Jirka

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:44:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:44:50 GMT