W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ACTION-388 Take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:34:33 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5208D6D2.3349A0B3-ON852576CC.0076260E-852576CC.00767F23@lotus.com>
Jonathan,

I need to learn more from Larry and others what's needed too, but there is 
an ACTION on the HTML side, assigned to Larry, So, I think you are exactly 
right that you fulfilled your formal action, which was to take a look, and 
we noted that awhile ago. The question is now:  what if anything does the 
TAG want to do, either to help Larry to fulfill his HTML action, or 
possibly to get involved in some other way in the doctype/versioning 
question.  This may turn out to be a simple or even trivial exercise on 
our part, but I do want to see if we can deal with it on Thurs.   So, 
Jonathan, I'm not aware of anything that specifically is in your court 
right now,  The pending review status of 388 correctly reflects that you 
are (likely) done with your bit of this.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
02/16/2010 03:24 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: ACTION-388 Take a look at LMM's 
doctype/versioning proposal


(Remove cc: dignitaries)

Sorry, I had no idea anyone was waiting for anything from me. My
action was to take a look, which I did; I asked Larry, who requested
the action, if anything else was needed and got no answer, which was
fine with me. What can I or we do that would be most useful - what is
the HTML WG looking for? If they're looking for some kind of TAG
endorsement or consensus statement it's got to be more than just me
doing the looking.

To repeat, the technical content seemed fine to me (someone who has
never touched a DOCTYPE with a ten-foot pole), but I thought it could
use some editorial attention.

Jonathan

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:46 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Paul: we are having a teleconference on the 18th, and I'll put it first 
up
> on our agenda.  Might I ask you to wait for the results of that
> discussion, which we will attempt to communicate to you promptly?
>
> TAG members:  please look through the discussions associated with our
> ACTION-388 prior to the Thursday call, as that will maximize the chance
> that we can do a good job on this without unnecessarily delaying 
progress
> on the HTML WG side.
>
> Thank you.
>
> No
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 02/16/2010 02:35 PM
>
>        To:     Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Robin Berjon
> <robin@berjon.com>
>        cc:     Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org"
> <www-tag@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak
> <mjs@apple.com>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>        Subject:        RE: ACTION-388 Take a look at LMM's
> doctype/versioning proposal
>
>
> ACTION-172 in the HTML WG is due this Thu Feb 18 and I believe it is
> awaiting input from the TAG via ACTION-388.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/172
>
> Can the TAG participants working on TAG ACTION-388 give us some idea 
when
> you are going to complete this work so that we can make progress on
> ACTION-172 in the HTML WG?
>
> /paulc
>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
Of
> Larry Masinter
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:28 AM
> To: Robin Berjon
> Cc: Jonathan Rees; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ACTION-388 Take a look at LMM's doctype/versioning proposal
>
>> Are you suggesting to change the way in which HTML5
>> documents handle PUBLID and SYSTEM IDs, as well I
>> presume as the internal subset, so that they can be
>>  used in conforming text/html serialisations?
>
> "documents" don't handle things, "processors" do.
> There are XML processors and HTML5 processors.
>
> I'm proposing to leave HTML5 processors exactly
> as they are specified, not changing them one
> teeny bit.
>
> I'd like to allow *some* use cases of *some*
> XML processors that use Public Identifiers and
> System identifiers to define subsets they're
> willing to process, and use the pubid and sysid
> to identify those subsets.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 21:35:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT