W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204111725040.22654@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> 
> Anywhere you look, Date.parse is "left to browser interpretation" with 
> the only available standard, ISO-8601, not even being fully implemented 
> in the modern browsers. The very informal w3c note is implemented, while 
> this standard is too big.
> 
> Does HTML5 change this? I'd be glad to hear this.

Date is defined in the JavaScript spec, so HTML doesn't affect this 
particular point.

The contemporary HTML standard tries to define everything that isn't a 
rendering QoI or UI detail, though, to avoid this exact problem. (The 
point Karl posted is a rendering QoI detail, and is therefore 
intentionally left undefined. The alternative is that some implementations 
would just not be compliant, either because they did a worse job than what 
the spec required due to hardware limitations, or they did a better job 
than the spec required. It is pointless to make something non-conforming 
if the implementor can't help but be non-conforming, and it's pointless to 
make something non-conforming that is _better_ than the spec. Hence why 
rendering QoI details are left undefined.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:28:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:51 GMT