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 16:23:20 +0200
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070423142320.GE15848@greytower.net>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:39:19PM +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> >Let's not mix the cards? The WHATWG proposal may, at some point in 
> >the future, be adopted by the W3C's HTMLWG.
> 
> Your whole argument is based on a minor technicality, and that makes 
> your point rather moot.

  It does not, no. You may disagree, of course, but I don't consider
  this a "minor technicality".



> >Very well: the WHATWG WA1 specification is not today, and MAY not be 
> >tomorrow, the base for HTML5,
> 
> At this stage, it would seem rather naive to expect otherwise.

  That is very possible. 

  However, and luckily, HTML 4.01 isn't going anywhere.





> Based on feedback from both implementers and other contributors, it is 
> indeed very likely that some parts of the spec will be significantly 
> altered between now and its completion.  Again, I fail to see the 
> relevance of your point.

  Implementing, re-implementing, and then re-re-implementing is only
  a good idea in ivory towers that /believe/ in XP. The implementation
  you speak of should /start/ when a solid foundation exist.

  The WA1 document is /not/ a solid foundation for implementation
  at this stage.




> seen very little use in reality have not.  I do not understand why it 
> would be sensible to begin with a spec of such poor quality as the basis 
> for work on the next version of HTML, particularly when a significantly 
> better spec already exists.

  A significantly better specification does /not/ exist. Not yet. The
  current HTML 4.01 specification would, IMHO, be as good, if not
  better, starting point than the WA1 draft.

  And we already /have/ implementations of it.




> Reality has, however, proven that it cannot work like that.  It is an 
> iterative cycle where browsers attempt to implement a feature, specs 
> document that feature and make improvements, browsers improve, the spec 
> is updated based on feedback, and so on until the implementations and 
> the spec agree.

  Actually, reality has not proven that at all. What /is/ proven is that
  UAs add things they'd like to see, or that authors clamour to use,
  and that /other/ UAs then rush to keep up. As a final, afterthought,
  a specification is written.

  This is how we got IMG, and this is how we got FONT. Just because
  three browser manufacturers now, together, put CANVAS in there
  doesn't change the fact that *canvas might not be a very good
  idea*.




> As it is a working draft, of course it isn't perfect.  But do you have
> any significant issues with it that you would like to see addressed? 
> Perhaps you should raise those issues on public-html or the whatwg 
> mailing list.

  Once it becomes the WD, then I shall certainly give input on
  the public-html mailing list. I am, however, not going to join
  the *WHATWG* mailing list.


  

> There has been plenty of debate about whether or not to include <i> and
> <b> in the spec, but I believe the pragmatic decision to include them
> was because they are widely used and will continue to be, and there are
> legitimate use cases for them.

  There is not now, nor has there EVER been, a legitimate use case for
  the I or B elements in HTML.

  Yes, I am aware of the discussions, and I have in the past participated
  in a great number of them. This does not change the fact:

  I and B are today, and was yesterday, purely presentational. They are,
  in the real world, USED for presentation. They are DESIGNED for
  presentation.

  There exist legitimate use cases for <latin name of cat>, but none
  what so *ever* for <i>. There never was. The pragmatic decision to
  make is to remove I and B from the specification, declared them dead
  and void, and *move on*.



> You have not presented any arguments against the spec, except for the
> fact that it isn't hosted at the W3C.  But even that argument is

  I have presented several. In my not too humble opinion the WA1 draft
  is not of sufficient quality to be chosen as the starting point of
  a new revision of HTML - and as such it should certainly not be
  implemented.

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 14:23:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:09 GMT