- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:03:17 +0200
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On 21/09/2014 23:19 , Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 2014-09-21 23:15, Sam Ruby wrote: >> I don't know what the "right" size is for a specification; but I'm >> pretty sure it isn't the transitive closure of all of the normative >> references to the HTML5 specification. > > I don’t think anyone suggested making HTML5, or any specification, the > transitive closure of its normative references. So this looks like a > strawman argument, against something. Actually, that is very much something that *has* been suggested in the past. I will note however that what we are facing here isn't a binary choice. If you look at the way CSS modules work, they have many documents but essentially a single namespace for definitions. In many ways they are producing many documents but a single specification. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between the technology and the documents that define it. Web technology tends to be relatively monolithic (perhaps I should say "densely coupled") but it is nevertheless possible to describe it in orthogonalised documents — particularly as the architecture tends to be cleaned up (to the extent that is possible). The architecture of the platform and the architecture of the documents describing it are necessarily related, but they don't have to be in a 1:1 mapping relationship. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 11:03:28 UTC