- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:41:38 -0400
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 10/2/2012 5:45 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: >> > >>See Noah's point about making the author spec the main HTML5 spec. >> > >> >I'm not sure what it would mean to make the author spec the "main" HTML5 >> >spec. Just to clarify, the words "main HTML5 specification" are not mine. What I said in my earlier email was: ------ "If I have a concern, it's that I don't see as much emphasis as I'd like from a social, a technical and publicity perspective on getting authors to follow [1], and to produce content that validates. One can imagine investing in educational materials and activities, publicity, or possibly even browser modes that create social pressure to "do it right". "Again, this is not criticizing the decision to document and attempt to get compatibility on the interpretation of non-conforming as well as conforming content (though, FWIW, I might have preferred if the main specification were titled as an HTML5 User Agent Specification, since what it documents goes well beyond what's conforming HTML5. I think [1] is closer to an HTML5 specification.) ------ Indeed, where I do in the second paragraph use the word "main", it's in reference to the larger UA specification [2]. I think that's much more nuanced than arguing that [1] should be in any sense the "main" spec overall. I do think we should encourage authors to consider [1] as >their< main specification, except perhaps in cases where they want to understand the behavior of browsers in recovering from particular "errors". I might even go along with suggesting that [1] is the main specification for the HTML(5) >language< and perhaps that it should be the basis of the media type registration. For implementors of user agents and those who want to understand what user agents are doing, [2] is and should remain the "main" specification. It's also the nature of the beast that [1] is a nearly proper subset of [2], so it's natural for the editors and working group to see [2] as the base or main specification from a spec production point of view. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 13:42:07 UTC