W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:50:48 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070423115048.GC19253@greytower.net>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:40:05PM +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Ah, yes it is.  It has been planned and worked on since 2004 when the 
> WHATWG began.  It's most likely that the WHATWG work will be adopted by 
> the new HTMLWG and it will be called HTML5.

  Let's not mix the cards? The WHATWG proposal may, at some point in
  the future, be adopted by the W3C's HTMLWG.

  At this point in time it has /not/, and there /are/ objections
  to it.

> >  processes which Apple, Mozilla and Opera already /are/ a part of. We
> >  have in the past gotten into trouble with ad-hoc additions to
> >  browsers.
> The WHATWG isn't just about introducing a whole bunch of new, ad hoc 
> proprietary extensions.  It's about documenting and standardising real 
> world HTML and developing new useful features, using an entirely open 
> process - significantly more open than that of many other W3C working 

  If browsers /now/ start implementing features from the WHATWG WA1
  specification, then  yes. It /is/ about introducing a whole bunch
  of ad hoc, proprietary extensions.

  That is why I caution against recommending the WA1 spec as a goal
  for implementors - not yet. If they implement what is there, now,
  then it's HTML-3.2-plus-proprietary-exensions all over again.

  And, yes, anyone can join the WHATWG. That's really not what this
  is all about.

> I fail to see see the point you are trying to make.

  Very well: the WHATWG WA1 specification is not today, and MAY
  not be tomorrow, the base for HTML5, nor is it in any way
  certain that even if it IS ... it won't look significantly

  So lets not jump the gun.

> >- indeed 'HTML 4.1' might be a better goal for now, and well within 
> >the charter.
> Assuming you meant HTML 4.01, beginning with that spec instead of the 

  No, I meant HTML 4.1. Starting with the 4.01 specification would
  make perfect sense; take out deprecated elements, clean it up,
  remove even more presentational markup ...

  Then release it. After that we can see.

> HTML4 isn't anywhere near close to interoperable, or even fully 
> implementable in the real world.

  That's something I would disagree with heavily, but THAT is the
  reason this needs to be discussed during a standardization

> >  Therefore it is jumping the gun to suggest that browsers WILL
> >  or SHOULD implement WA1.
> No it's not.  The WHATWG has had the support of 3 major browser vendors 
> since its inception and some features are already seeing implementations 
> in those browser.  The sooner browsers start implementing it, the better.

  No. It doesn't matter if it has the support of a dozen. We should
  very carefully avoid, once more, putting the cart before the horse.

> > (If there DO exist a formal decision from the W3C on using the
> >  WA1 draft document as basis for the new HTML revision, regardless
> >  of which revision-number it will end up with, I would quite
> >  appreciate a link to the appropriate WD on the W3C site.)
> What difference does the W3C logo make to the quality of the spec? 
> Specs should be judged on their quality, not their point of origin.

  I don't believe I mentioned a logotype? Yes, the specs SHOULD be
  judged on their quality, not their origin, but:

   - The W3C /is/ the standardization organization, and

   - The quality of the WA1 is in question as it is.

  We /are/ in 2007. Up until now I've not said anything on this topic,
  despite following it, but we /really/ do not need to start over
  with a HTML5 which, for instance, contain <i> with a revised
  purpose over what authors has used it for in the last decade.

  What I asked for was the link to the W3C WD document based on WA1.
  If that does not exist, please avoid recommending WA1 to

 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 11:50:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:15 UTC