- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:48:31 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 08:33 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: > Liam, > > Le 25 août 2011 à 08:22, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit : > > 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. > > > 1. Go to first TR WD of HTML4 You're quoting Leif, not me. However, I'll reply :-) I see no objection if HTML 4 was published using HTML 4, nor if HTML 5 is published using HTML 5, as I have said. On the other hand... what if we want to publish the XSL-FO 2.0 draft as an XSL-FO 2.0 document, not in HTML? Web browsers won't easily be able to display it, but it would encourage adoption and we should eat our own dog food, right? No, because the goal is to have specs that the implementors can read and understand. So, HTML is (rightly) treated as a special case at the World Wide Web Consortium, and the drafts are written so that existing browsers can understand them. Plus it's the browser-makers working on the spec, a luxury we don't have in (say) the XML world, where there might easily be over 100,000 XML-system implementations in the world. None the less, we should be careful about what precedents we set. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 17:49:19 UTC