- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:42:20 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-forms-tf@w3.org
On Aug 22, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: > > Hello public-forms-tf, > > Now that both HTML and Forms WGs have nominated their task force > representatives, the next thing is to get a charter together. > > There are useful bits of wording in the Forms and the HTML WG > charters: > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter > > the directors decision had an 'architectural vision' document and a > 'process comments' document, both have useful text and guidance: > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-forms-process-public > > > and Dan Connolly made a selection of useful wording from these in an > archived email message: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0015.html Side note: One of Dan's quote was of an early internal version of the architectural vision document. He quoted it as: "The charter calls for two equivalent serializations to be developed, corresponding to a single DOM (or infoset, though tag soup cannot be considered to have an infoset currently, while it can have a DOM). This ensures that decisions are not made which would not preclude an XML serialization. It allows the two serializations to be inter- converted automatically. Having new language features, there is an incentive for content authors to use it; and having client-side implementations means that there is the possibility to really use it." However, the version of the vision document published actually says: "Instead, the charter calls for two equivalent serializations to be developed *by the HTML WG* [emphasis mine], corresponding to a single DOM (or infoset, though tag soup cannot be considered to have an infoset currently, while it can have a DOM). This ensures that decisions are not made which would preclude an XML serialization. It allows the two serializations to be inter-converted automatically. Having new language features, there is an incentive for content authors to use it; and having client-side implementations means that there is the possibility to really use it." The quote from the official version appears not to be about this task force at all, but about the HTML language spec deliverable of the HTML WG. I mention this so we don't accidentally draw on the misquoted version of the statement. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:42:32 UTC