- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:03:46 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> 1) Why is this important for HTML, but not for SVG or MathML or >> XForms or SMIL, where one document defines what you consider "the >> language" as well as "all the rest"? Why is this the only W3C >> language where implementation conformance requirements, DOM >> interfaces and error handling should be left out of the main spec? > > It may be important for the others as well. Are you aware of any practical problems, complaints from implementors, or complaints from authors as a result of the way those other specs include all the relevant information in one document? I am not. Thus I presume there is no real problem other than a desire for theoretical purity, unless it can be shown that HTML is materially different from these other languages in some relevant way. >> 2) Mike's document is explicitly only for producers. But a >> conformance checker is a content consumer. Currently the main HTML5 >> spec includes conformance requirements for conformance checkers. It >> can't do this without defining what is a document conformance error >> and which are mandatory for a conformance checker to diagnose. It >> would be disastrous if conformance checkers flagged errors in a >> manner that is inconsistent with Mike's document. It would be >> similarly disastrous if user agents parsed content in a way that >> had unexpected results for correct syntax. Both of these things are >> very hard to verify with a separate spec and would create serious >> problems if the specs disagree. > > Yes, that's why the syntax should be defined in a single spec. Great. We already have one. Let's not make a second one. >> 3) Mike's document seems to have the implied premise that content >> producers, unlike consumers, won't be interested in the scripting >> interfaces. But a large proportion of Web content, especially >> content on the most popular sites, includes some script, and >> correctness of that content depends on scripting behavior. Some >> elements, such as <canvas>, <event-source>, or to a lesser extend >> <video>, don't even make sense without their scripting interfaces. >> So it seems to me it is not even very useful as an authoring guide. > > Total disagreement. The elements you mention may be important for > the browser platform, but are totally meaningless for HTML5 as a > document markup language. Thus they should be defined in optional > modules. You don't want "the language spec" to actually define the whole vocabulary of language? Why don't we just title it "The Parts of HTML5 That Julian Reschke Likes". >> Therefore I am strongly in favor of following the standard W3C >> approach, with a single spec that defines syntax, vocabulary, DOM >> interfaces and error handling. I strongly object to doing otherwise >> solely because of some vocal complainers who cannot articulate a >> principled reason why they demand this for the HTML spec but not >> any other W3C markup language. > > I'm making recommendations for the specs the WG I'm member of works > on. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't make the same recommendations > if I'd by in one of the WGs that produce these specs. In each case the responsible working groups accept public comments from non-members, much as the HTML WG has accepted many comments from non-members on this issue. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 10:04:27 UTC