- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:39:00 +0100
- To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, Regarding the draft of the Markup Spec [1], it is unclear to me who the intended audience of the document is. This is a question I raised in the in the F2F in France, regarding requests for a similar document, but failed to get an answer. While it is clear that the scope is limited to markup producers, there are still a wide variety of such producers, each with many overlapping and distinct needs. In order to review the proposal the proper context, it is necessary to clearly define who the intended audience is so that it can be evaluated in regards to whether or not it adequately addresses the needs of that audience. The set of markup producers include authors of various skill levels, authoring tool vendors (like Dreamweaver), tutorial writers, CMS vendors, a wide range of other tool vendors who's products provide some form of automatically generated HTML output. Each of those groups requires different kinds of information from different sections of the spec, depending on their specific needs and abilities. For instance, an author who's just writing a blog needs the syntax, semantics and content models, but needs it in a way that is very reader friendly. Whereas an authoring tool vendor would be able to handle a more formal grammar to explain the conforming syntax, but also very likely needs the parsing and possibly rendering requirements, in the case of WYSIWYG editors. Based on the way the draft is written, it's not clear that the draft adequately addresses the needs any particular group, nor provides all the required information. It also purports to be a normative document, which indicates that it's supposed to be more than just an informative syntax guide. This is a problem because it duplicates and restructures a lot of information from the spec itself, but not always by copying it verbatim. Even if it did copy everything verbatim and elimited the possibility of conflict, I don't understand why any of it needs to be normatively defined twice. For instance, section 3 from the markup spec duplicates section 8.1 from HTML5; section 4 from the markup spec duplicates sections 4 duplicates much of section 4 from HTML5; section 5 duplicates some of section 3.4; section 6 duplicates some of section 3.3.3; section 6.5 lists repetition template attributes that were dropped from the spec; and appendix A duplicates section 8.6. Since both would be normative, what would happen in the event of a conflict? Although, ideally, there shouldn't be any by the the time they're finalised, it's still possible. In fact, it's happened in one obvious case already. c.f. The repetition template attributes mentioned above. There is also some overlap with the information provided in authoring guide, such as providing the element content models, describing the syntax, etc. However, unlike the authoring guide, it's written in what appears to be some type of formal grammar, which isn't really reader friendly, and seems less suitable for authors than the way the spec itself is written. Also note that the formal grammar used in the draft doesn't actually seem to be defined anywhere and seems to be some kind of ad hoc syntax partially inspired by that used in DTDs, with some weird anomalies with the way attributes are seemingly included within the element's content model. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/ -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 18:39:43 UTC