- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 20:26:21 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 01:39 AM 1/5/2003 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> I have already replied to this twice, once in my last e-mail: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0074.html >>> ...and once in the e-mail before that: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0074.html >> >> What part of "which states that specification _completely_ controls >> semantics?" do you not understand? > >There is no such statement anywhere. Thank for finally admitting that! > There doesn't need to be. Axiomatically and by definition, specifications are never invisible or implicit. They are always explicit. So if specifications wanted to "_completely_ control semantics" then they would say that. >Even if HTML stated that it wasn't the final word on the semantics I assure you that HTML 4.01 spec does NOT explicitly state that it "_completely_ control semantics". [...] >Just because _something_ can change the semantics, doesn't mean >_everything_ can. If _one_ thing can change the semantics of a specification, then it means "specification does NOT _completely_ control semantics". [...] >There are multiple fundamental disagreements, those that I mentioned in >that post are unrelated to semantics. The issue of whether specification _completely_ controls semantics is the most important fundamental question to resolve first. Because it determines whether any thing other than specification can change semantics. >I take it some sample XBL (as requested) is out of the question? It will be given _after_ we resolve the fundamental issue. I disagree with your statements about XBL and XSLT, but that is irrelevant at the moment. First we must resolve the fundamental issue. [...] >But the implementation has nothing to do with its semantics; it's just a >presentational aspect. If the implementation violates the HTML 4.01 spec, then per my Axiomatic Proof [1], it has changed the semantics. Your examples are useless against the Axiomatic Proof. [...] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0073.html (see bottom for Axiomatic Proof) -Shelby Moore
Received on Saturday, 4 January 2003 21:25:41 UTC