- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:52:15 -0400
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, tina@greytower.net, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 5/1/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > On May 1, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> This seems to be the source of contention in the current debate. > >> For the spec to be implementable, it needs to define conformance > >> requirements for UAs, including error handling and how to handle > >> both existing and future content. > > Perhaps if those implementation conformance constraints were > > defined in a separate specification, it would help to clearly > > divide the issue? > ... it is essential that the two match up when > they overlap. Would it resolve some of the acrimony if the document were split into two clearly marked specifications (1) HTML 5.0 Language Specification (2) HTML 5.0 User Agent Error Processing Specification (Whether to make them two separate documents, or just two different classes to be used on adjacent sections -- I suppose would depend on how tightly the two specifications were interwoven.) The language could stay pure. It would be clear (at least to people who cared) which parts of the language were "correct", and which were merely "historical notes documented to aid browser implementors". Someone who wanted to write a validator (or a demo browser) could speed development by explicitly supporting only correct markup, instead of picking a hodge-podge of features at random. -jJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:52:18 UTC