RE: Normative status of author-only view of the HTML5 specification from James Graham on 2011-06-07 (www-tag@w3.org from June 2011)

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:09:45 +0200 (CEST)
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106072206450.2481@sirius>

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Paul Cotton wrote:

>> Given that we would then have two documents with normative status 
>> describing how HTML is defined. Which of the two is authoritative if 
>> the two don't agree?
>
> Our goal is have the two documents agree - the author-only view is 
> generated directly from the HTML5 spec.

Nevertheless it seems undesirable to have two different documents claim 
authority over what constitues valid HTML. I would much prefer the 
document containing only the author view of the spec to be explicitly 
informative and clearly marked as a subset of the full HTML5 spec 
published for the convenience of one target audience.

Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 20:11:23 UTC