- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:59:10 +0200
- 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