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

Re: Publication of specifications as HTML5

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:22:38 +0200
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110825142238313823.77ef6322@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Liam R E Quin, Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:16:33 -0400:

> Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't want to see
> Recommendations on /TR using markup features that are defined only by
> working drafts, just as we don't normally allow a normative reference
> from a Recommendation to a Working Draft.
> Obviously if the HTML 5 spec uses HTML 5, by the time HTML 5 is a
> Recommendation, the markup used by the HTML 5 spec will also be a
> Recommendation :-) and there isn't a problem. Similarly for any spec
> with a normative dependency on HTML 5.
> the general principle of whether the markup language of a specification
> is in itself in effect a dependency.

So: feel free to use any markup, as long as the markup relies on a 
Recommendation under /TR. This includes that the document may refer to 
the markup that the document itself defines.  FWIW, this makes 
perfectly sense to me. And this seems also to be the approach that was 
followed when HTML401 was published. After all, the HTML401 spec is 
published with a HTML401 transitional doctype.

One problem: If a draft ends up as Note, then it should not be allowed 
to formally get Note status unless the Note's mark-up relies on a 
Recommendation under /TR. Thus: if it is a planned Recommendation for a 
new mark-up language that ends up as a Note, and if that document used 
the mark-up of the planned new mark-up language (or language version), 
then that note would have to change its mark-up in order to conform to 
something other than itself.

As for Polyglot Markup - the spec: If it conforms to itself, to 
polyglot HTML5 markup, then it can only be published after HTML5 proper 
has become a Recommendaiton under /TR. 

Regarding the following excerpt ...
> If it is not, then we should be allowed to edit pages on /TR, and in
> that case if HTML 5 were to change, any specs written in HTML 5 could be
> updated.
> I'd be equally happy with either approach, … snip …

... then I did not get what you meant. What is the other approach that 
you would be happy with?
Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 12:23:25 UTC

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