- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:59:01 +0000
- To: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Dean Edridge wrote: > Philip TAYLOR continues: >> I am arguing in favour >> of a first, normative, > > If it is normative then it is going to conflict with what the spec says. > If it's not normative it's going to clash with the authoring guide. I don't think I'm expressing myself poorly, and I can't think that you are failing to understand what I'm saying, so I don't know how to explain the confusion : Mike's draft represents a start at writing a definitive (normative) specification for the HTML 5 language; the present draft specification is an infinitely more complex document that seeks not only to define the language but a great deal more besides. The idea is that this latter draft specification should be /replaced/ by a number of simpler, more tightly focussed, specifications, of which Mike's would become one. Once you accept that premise (and accepting it doesn't mean agreeing with it, simply accepting what is meant by it), the concept of a "clash" can no longer arise. > Philip TAYLOR continues: >> ...language specification, >> towards which Mike's draft is an superb start. > > I don't actually think that Mike should have started it. Why not ? I see it as one of the most significant contributions to the work of this group to emerge so far, and even if there were aspects of it with which I personally disagreed, I would have no hesitation in voting in favour of its publication (unlike previous proposals to publish the draft specification). Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 15:00:23 UTC