- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:08:35 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
On Sep 27, 2011, at 15:57 , Norman Walsh wrote: > Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> writes: >> Finally, so far no one has seemed to care the least bit about it, but >> I'll mention it one last time just in case :) I think that there could >> be some value in working on points of friction when crossing XML/HTML >> environment boundaries, as well as on cross-pollination (see >> http://www.w3.org/mid/C201A791-AD3C-4CC7-BDEE-B44EE2706A3F@berjon.com). >> I'm perfectly fine with that notion not going into the report if >> everyone just yawns at it, but I do stick by the idea that looking at >> stuff "on the other side" as if it might be usefully transferrable >> mutatis mutandis is more productive than considering that everything >> linked to a given technology is necessarily stupid and needs to be >> reinvented in as perfect as possible ignorance of any precedent. > > I think it's a good idea. I don't think we've talked about it enough > to work out what there might be consensus enough about to put in the > document. > > Robin, would you be willing to try to draft a few paragraphs that you > think cover the topic? We can talk about that and, if we reach > consensus, figure out how to put it in the document. Sure, I'll try to draft something inside of a week. Do we have a tracker instance? If not it doesn't matter, I'll just write it down on paper. John Cowan wrote: >> I strongly agree here. The HTML5 rules work because they reflect what >> parsers actually do. We have no experience with parsing ill-formed >> XML, and no way to say what the correct rules would be. Talk of a WG is >> wildly premature. I would prefer something very vague about "further >> investigation". > > Fair enough. I didn't really intend to imply the creation of a working > group (despite my choice of words!) and I'll soften that language. (I > was only trying to underscore the fact that *we* weren't the right > group to do the job and so readers shouldn't be looking to us to > produce such a document.) Oh, if the goal is to make sure we don't end up with having to do the work of defining HTML5 then use whatever language you think will get that across ;) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:09:01 UTC