W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: move "SGML limited support" info to appendix

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:33:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3453A90B.99C8F441@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-html-editor@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
> Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >
> > > (not speaking as WG chair here)
> > >
> > > Please consider moving:
> > >
> > > 3.2.6 SGML features with limited support
> > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.6
> > >
> > > to Appendix B
> > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/appendix/notes.html
> >
> > I added the following paragraph to
> > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/convent.html:
> >
> >    User agents must not render SGML processing instructions (e.g.,
> The current spec says SHOULD:
>         "Processing Instructions <?your user agent should hide these> "
> Changing "should" to "must" is a change in the language.

First of all, YOU NEEDN'T YELL.

Second, you are wrong. Consult

a) The header reads:
     Processing Instructions <?your user agent should hide these> 

b) A few sentences later we have:
     User agents must not render SGML processing instructions 
     (e.g., <?full volume>). 

The spec was inconsistent, but I did not make a careless mistake.

In moving the entire section on unsupported features,
I removed the one "must" sentence and put it into
the normative section 
(at the end, the section on SGML).

> Seeing this makes me lose almost all confidence that the spec
> reflects the intent of the WG. It fills me with
> the need to review the WHOLE THING.

> I've felt this way for a while, but I haven't found time to
> do the review. As you can see, I started over the weekend,
> but I'm not nearly finished.

I understand your concern. Despite the speed with which
we have to make these changes in light of imminent deadlines,
I try to (1) run semantic changes by the WG (2) document
all changes in CVS (3) make editorial changes that do
not affect the content.

However, the editors are bound to make a few mistakes
in the process.

I, too, would like to read the spec from beginning to
end but have not had time. It was my intention to do
that once the email comments stopped.

> On the good side, I was pleased with the comprehensiveness
> of the spec, and the more I looked at it, the more I liked
> it.

I'm glad to hear that.

> But I don't seem to be able to impress upon you the
> need to NOT change the technical details when you change
> the editorial content.

I not only hear you, I pay very close attention. I've
been burned too many times for what I considered innocent
changes (e.g., "try to break lines at white space": In
some languages this isn't true). Since then, I've
paid very close attention.

Talk to you soon,


Ian Jacobs / 401 Second Ave. #19G / New York, NY 10010 USA
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814
Email: ibjacobs@panix.com
Received on Sunday, 26 October 1997 15:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:19 UTC