- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:26:58 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Toby Inkster wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>> Authors must not use elements, attributes, and attribute values that >>> are not permitted by this specification or other applicable >>> specifications. >>> -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#semantics-0 >> Which "other specifications" are "applicable"? > > Pretty much any that claim to be and that the people affected agree are > applicable. If an RDFa specification said that text/html could have > arbitrary xmlns:* attributes, then the HTML5 specification would (by > virtue of the above-quoted sentence) defer to it and thus it would be > allowed. Similarly, Microsoft could write a spec and claim <marquee> is > valid, as well as <msword> and <excel>. > > Of course, if a community doesn't acknowledge the authority of such a > spec, and they _do_ acknowledge the authority of the HTML5 spec, then it > would be (for them) as if that spec didn't exist. Similarly, there might > be a community that only acknowledges the HTML4 spec and doesn't consider > HTML5 to be relevant, in which case for them, HTML5 isn't relevant. > > This is how specs work. :-) Is it? A normative requirement that refers to an undefined set of specs? Me confused. Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 09:27:47 UTC