On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Actually, I would call them editorial issues that go to the heart of > what the WG is supposed to be drafting. You keep calling this thing > HTML5 because that's what you started calling it years ago. I call it > a browser behavior specification, because that's what I wanted the > W3C to work on back in 1996. They are the same specification. > I agree it is needed, but it has very little to do with defining the > Hypertext Mark-up Language. HTML is a data format with a small set > of default rendering and behavioral semantics. HTML does not require > a DOM, support for any specific scripting language, or even > stylesheets. > There are literally hundreds of technologies involved in the Web that > are orthogonal to HTML -- they are not HTML. HTML is the mark-up > language. The DOM and other features you mention are part of our charter deliverables, so it would not make sense to remove them from the spec. > The problem with publishing it is simply that the title is wrong. > It will mislead a lot of developers who are looking for a definition > of HTML and find, instead, a lot of half-baked ideas about how a > browser should compose a DOM, reinterpret HTTP, make useless requests, > and a lot of other things you've added to enshrine browser bugs. > It is not HTML5 by any stretch of the imagination. We already made a group decision that the spec title would be HTML5. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor. We could certainly revisit that old decision, but I seriously doubt it would go the other way. I don't think it is reasonable to hold the FPWD hostage to getting your way on the title. > Call it "Uniform Browser Behavior for the Web" and my informal > objection is waived. As an aside, I don't think your proposed title is accurate. The spec covers many conformance classes besides browsers, including documents, editors, validators, and non-browser implementations. If you wanted to call it "HTML Syntax, Semantics and Behavior for Browsers, Documents, Editors, Validators, and Other Implementations 5", then that would be accurate but I think pretty long-winded. Regards, MaciejReceived on Thursday, 29 November 2007 22:54:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:24 UTC