W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Publication of specifications as HTML5

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:00:36 -0400
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1314050436.7154.69.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com>
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 16:33 -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> > Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for
> > archiving.
> [...]

>   Archivability of the format is how reliably we
> expect it to be readable into the distant future.  Just because
> something ostensibly conforms to a Recommendation doesn't mean it's
> readable at all. 

That's true, I agree. T some extent for W3C that's what (1) pubrules and
(2) human review attempt to accomplish.

> Moreover, just because something is not yet a Recommendation doesn't
> mean it's not stable.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - W3C has a definition of the word "stable"
involving Recommendation... it's true that a given specification might
not have technical changes between Last Call and Recommendation, but
it's not unusual for there to be at least small changes.


> In fact, the HTMLWG explicitly considered the question of whether to
> add version identifiers to HTML5:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0135.html>.
> It concluded that a version indicator is not necessary, because
> (roughly) all future versions of HTML are expected to be
> backward-compatible, and in the unlikely event that they're not, a
> version indicator can be added at that point.

I'm glad there are no bugs :-) Since version indication was removed, I
don't (speaking as an individual) have confidence it will come back.
But, once HTML 5 is a W3C Recommendation I also see no reason not to use
it. Before that point, with no standard way to say one's using a
particular draft, I do not think it should be used.

> [...]

>  Do you foresee
> any concrete, short- to medium-term harm from permitting the use of
> HTML5 for W3C specifications?  Or are the issues you have with
> publication as HTML5 solely a matter of principle?

A matter of principle becomes a matter that is practical when your
entire organisation is in fact about promoting a principle.

Yes, I see harm in using things that are not standards.


Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 22:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC