W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2012

Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: Update on the relationship between the WHATWG HTML living standard and the W3C HTML5 specification

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:38:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkybUQR6TsD=DbgkdaLXO-iZU-16A8Y7sTU=5wRP6biWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Hi Bronslav

- keeping to the technical as per hixi'e request

you wrote:

" both derives their
authority from browser vendors - "specification" not supported by
majority of browsers is irrelevant, developers can only work with what
is in the browser (plugins are becoming obsolete, as it would seems).
The only thing, that matters is what is in browsers."

Not exactly true, the semantics of HTML and the rules on how
implemented (or yet to be implemented) features are to be used within
the constraints of their implementation is not down to the browser
vendors, the rules on how HTML is to be used has an important effect
upon the accessibility of authored content.

Also there are there are other classes of software such as conformance
checkers for which HTML/HTML5 provide normative requirements and
advice.

And as it happens this is one of the areas where the 2 specs diverge:

In the HTML5 spec [5] there are currently only 2 cases (soon there may
only be 1 [1]) where lack of alt on an attribute is considered
conforming:

"A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an
error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:
•The img element is in a figure element that satisfies the conditions
described above.
•The document has a meta element with a name attribute whose value is
an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "generator". (This case
does not represent a case where the document is conforming, only that
the generator could not determine appropriate alternative text —
validators are required to not show an error in this case to
discourage markup generators from including bogus alternative text
purely in an attempt to silence validators.)"


While in HTML living standard there are 3 [2] the one missing from HTML5 is

"The title attribute is present and has a non-empty value"

The reasons why the HTML5 specification does not have the same
requirement as HTML the living standard is well documented [3]

So conformance checkers have to make a decision about which set of
rules to implement. I would strongly suggest that one of the major
validation tools [4] will implement the rules in the W3C HTML spec,
not HTML living standard.


[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGeneratorUpdated
[2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage//embedded-content-1.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
[3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2
[4] http://validator.w3.org/
[5] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers




On 25.7.2012 16:55, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> hi Bronislav
>
> you wrote:
>
> I was just looking at WHATWG wiki and there is nice sentence: "In
> general the WHATWG will ensure that the normative content of the
> specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
> the same so long as the W3C group doesn't demonstrate any serious lapses
> in judgement."
>
>
> I am sure the same can be said from the other viewpoint,
>
> The W3C HTML working group  will ensure that the normative content of the
> specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
> the same so long as the WHATWG group doesn't demonstrate any serious lapses
> in judgement.
>
>
> Which is why the 2 specs have diverged on author conformance
> requirements and advice as each group considers the other to have made
> lapses in judgement.
>
Hi Steve,
True, no doubt about that, but that is matter of relevancy of opinion.
Mine and yours are irrelevant. W3C and WHATWG as organizations are
irrelevant - neither actually have any authority, both derives their
authority from browser vendors - "specification" not supported by
majority of browsers is irrelevant, developers can only work with what
is in the browser (plugins are becoming obsolete, as it would seems).
The only thing, that maters is what is in browsers.

Bronislav Klucka

--
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:39:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:09 GMT