RE: [CSS21] Normative reference to HTML4

> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On


> Sure, of the W3C specs.  On <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/refs.html> we
> list 18 total specs that we reference.  The fact that 14 of them
> (everything but HTML4, PNG, UAAG, and XML) aren't W3C specs doesn't
> seem relevant.  They're also not PR or REC, and yet we have them
> listed as normative references.

17 normative references including HTML4, actually. 

Have you bothered checking them for their stability and maturity ? 

[COLORIMETERY] http://www.cie.co.at/publ/abst/15-2004.html

"CIE 15:2004 Colorimetry represents the latest edition of these recommendations"
A document from 2004 with an ISBN number should constitute a relatively
stable reference imo.

[FLEX] No link. Another document with an ISBN. A search on Amazon indicates
this dates from 1993. No subsequent editions. That is either obsolete or pretty 
darn stable.

[ICC42] http://www.color.org/icc_specs2.html, since updated to include errata,
maps to an ISO standard. Also five years old. 

[ISO8879] An ISO document from 1986. (Is that really normative ?)

[ISO10646] Is HTML5 as stable and mature as Unicode ?

[PNG] http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/, REC

[RFC3986] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986

Also known as STD #67 http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbyRFC

Issues list seems closed as of 2004:
http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rev-2002/issues.html


[RFC2045] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt

This would be MIME. Yes, it's still a draft standard but also a 
pretty stable spec that is widely implemented and referenced. At 
least it still was when I implemented it in a previous life around...
you guessed it: 2004.

[RFC2616] HTTP/1.1. 

[RFC2119] 'Nuf said.

[RFC2318] The 'text/css' media type. Does this really compare to taking
a dependency on HTML5 ? 

[SRGB] http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/artnum/025408

IEC standard from 1999. I think that one is stable (Not being 
sarcastic, I honestly know next to nothing about it).

[UAAG10] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/, REC

[UNICODE] Deployed, mature, stable. 

[XML10] REC (2004 !)

[YACC] All the way from 1975. That's beyond mature. It's bloody old. 
(I-was-watching-cartoons-on-a-black-and-white-TV old).

I honestly can't understand how one can claim that it's OK to list HTML5
here since most of these documents do not have 'REC' or 'PR' on their 
cover. I love HTML5 and I can't claim following it as closely as you
do but implying that it's anywhere near as stable and mature a reference
as any of these is just...weird. Unless you can explain why a document
in this list cannot/should not be normatively referenced and why ?
 
> > In short, I see no practical benefit to use updating our reference to
> > HTML5. I only see process difficulties in doing so.
> >
> > If there's some concern about normatively referencing HTML4, I would
> > suggest instead recategorizing the reference as informative rather
> > than normative.
> 
> Changing it to an informative reference would also be fine.
> 
> So, we need to either:
> 
> 1. Ensure that no 2.1 tests are testing minimized attributes, since
> HTML4's explanation of how to treat them is incorrect.
> 2. Update HTML4's reference status to "informative" rather than
> "normative".
> 
> Or:
> 
> 1. Ensure that any 2.1 tests that are using minimized attributes test
> correctly for the fact that the attribute's value is the empty string.
> 2. Change our HTML reference from HTML4 to HTML5.
> 

I'm not sure I even understand the concern yet. Do implementations actually fail 
these testcases ?

Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 03:44:30 UTC