W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > November 2014

Re: HTML Modularisation

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:59:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CANXqsR+svuDkp1KECFELk75gwLojf0okTxhYjEDihr5A359_wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Everybody agrees that it is hard, it is work, and that it is useful and
> powerful.

I don't agree that modularizing the topic areas that are covered by
WHATWG HTML is useful. It looks like busy-work to me, and it seems to
me that it would make it harder to see the differences between WHATWG
HTML and W3C HTML.

> A comment on the contrast to XHTML modularization: a goal of XHTML
> modularization was to enable an "a la carte" model where mobile vendors
> could pick and chose what features they would support.  That would not be
> the case here: the goal would remain "one web".  If (hypothetically) <form>
> support were to be split out into a separate specification, it would be
> normative referenced and not optional.

What good would this accomplish? When I read
https://twitter.com/robinberjon/status/527205450400296960 , I thought
Robin was joking.

When the W3C develops a feature that the WHATWG isn't working on, such
as MSE, I think it makes sense to put it in a separate document. But
what good would it do to a) browser implementors or b) people who want
to check their expectations of browser behavior to have the W3C
PP-covered description of <form> be structurally different from the
WHATWG upstream?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Friday, 28 November 2014 07:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:30 UTC