Re: URGENT: Preparing for next round of TAG Review of HTML 5

I did some of my homework re HTML5.  I had some comments and questions 
on section 2.4

Section 2.4 describes several datatypes.  The syntax for these datatypes 
is described informally.

Q1.  Why not use BNF to describe the syntax?

The section includes algorithms for parsing the string representation.

Q2.  Why are these algorithms required?  Typically, it is hard to get 
the bugs out of them.
Larry say they are for conformance/consistency.  If so, why not just 
reference standard works such as
ISO 8601 or IEEE 754.

Q3.  Does HTML5 convert the string representation to binary for, say, 
floating point numbers?
If so, I'm sure, implementations just use the native language libraries 
such as the java Math library.
Why not just refer to these?

Note that XML Schema covers much of the same ground and may be a good 
reference.


All the best, Ashok


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> TAG members:
>
> We are at our deadline date for readthroughs of assigned sections [1] of 
> the HTML 5 draft, and we have approximately 3 weeks until the start of our 
> September F2F.  This email sets out the steps I would like all TAG members 
> to take now to prepare the input we will need for our discussions.
>
>
> What I'm asking each TAG member to do:
> ======================================
>
> Please send us >now< a list of specific issues with the HTML 5 drafts that 
> you believe merit group consideration by the TAG, or else an explicit 
> indication that you do not wish to suggest any.  Send at least an initial 
> list of your most critical issues in time for the call on Thurs (3 Sept). 
> (I believe I requested this last week, so you have had some notice.  If 
> you can't make the date, then please suggest a date you can make;  late 
> input will be considered.)
>
> Please give priority to issues that significantly impact the integrity and 
> health of the Web, those that have the most important architectural 
> implications, and those that relate to consistency with other 
> specifications.   The TAG may or may not decide to provide input on 
> smaller issues as well, but we will do that on a time-available basis 
> after dealing with any that clearly have TAG scope. 
>
> For each issue you identify:
>
> * Indicate whether you believe it to be a high priority for TAG 
> consideration, and if so why (or why not).
>
> * If possible, identify specific text or sections in the HTML 5 draft that 
> is causing concern, or if many parts of the draft are pertinent, highlight 
> one or two representative specifics.
>
> * If possible, suggest a resolution.  History suggests that proposing 
> revised text can be constructive in many cases.
>
> Please do list any issues that the TAG has already discussed, such as 
> version identifiers, if you continue to believe they are important, and 
> indicate their priority relative to others.
>
>
> What the TAG as a whole will do:
> ================================
>
> I intend to gather this input and schedule very brief discussion of each 
> issue that's proposed as being highest importance.  The initial goal will 
> be go get TAG consensus on which issues to give priority, then to assign 
> several TAG members to dive deeper on each, making sure the concern is 
> valid, proposing positions that the TAG might take, etc. 
>
> While this is going on, we will continue discussion of some of the issues 
> that have already come up, including suggestions for explicit version 
> indicators, concerns relating to content type sniffing, etc.
>
> Much of the time at the Sept. F2F will be spent gathering and refining our 
> analysis and preparing comments (if any).
>
>
> A note to members of the HTML community
> =======================================
>
> I am suggest that the TAG do as much of this work in public as possible, 
> send issues lists to this public mailing list, etc.  That has the 
> advantage that everyone can follow our deliberations, but there's a real 
> risk of people getting upset too early about things they see coming up. 
> Please don't.  The point is to give the TAG a chance to discuss and 
> deliberate before providing feedback to you.  Also:  don't assume that 
> because we're doing a careful, detailed review that the TAG will ultimtely 
> decide to make formal comments.  We may or may not, now or later.
>
> By all means, if you have constructive suggestions or can clear up 
> misunderstandings as our discussions proceed, dive in.  Beyond that, 
> please give the TAG a chance to come to well reasoned decisions before you 
> get too concerned about issues that may have been raised by individual TAG 
> members. 
>
> Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009Jul/0026.html
>
> P.S. Tracker: this relates to TAG ISSUE-54
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 02:41:17 UTC