W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Tim BL's HTML WG announcement and WHAT WG

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:04:04 +0900
Message-Id: <9DC54F85-0FB5-4D01-BD41-677020059A6B@w3.org>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
To: Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>


Le 30 oct. 2006 à 08:32, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells a écrit :
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Does the W3C now accept that HTML is not in practice an   
>> application of SGML?
>
> Why do you believe this to be important, Henri ?

I think Henri is saying that because in the desktop browsers world,  
SGML is not the technology used for parsing HTML. There are  
implementations with different models attempting to parse HTML as it  
is not defined. So there are proposals to create an "HTML parsing  
model".

What will be interesting to see if they all perl, python, C, Ruby,  
etc. libraries will follow this model once it is defined. It would be  
good I guess for the new WG to gather implementation experience, not  
only in desktop browsers but also in all applications consuming or  
producing HTML.

>> Does the W3C now subscribe to the view that the  engines that  
>> matter the most are Gecko, Presto, Trident and WebKit  and if they  
>> interoperate, their common behavior is what gets specified?
>
> Is Internet Explorer based on any of these engines ?  If
> not, then the list needs to include IE's underlying engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML)

Trident - Microsoft
Gecko   - Mozilla Foundation
WebKit  - Apple
KHTML   - KDE Project
Presto  - Opera
iCab    - iCab

Though IMHO, layout engines are just one part of it. As I said above  
parsing libraries, indexing bots, authoring tools are as MUCH  
important, specifically if we want to stop the generation of tag soup.

> In addition, if the role of the W3C is simply to to place
> its seal of approval on what /is/, rather than on what
> /should be/, then I for one would find that a very
> disturbing (not to say depressing) state of affairs.

Here come the consensus and the fact to deal with very different kind  
of opinions. I have read in many occasions exactly the opposite. I'm  
not taking position here. I'm just stating that there are different  
expressed opinions.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 01:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT