- From: John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:10:03 -0500
- To: ext Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
ext Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:47, James Graham wrote: > >> I am wary of any attempt to create a second, normative, document aimed >> only at authors. Every time there is more than one "definitive" source >> for the same information there is the possibility of conflicts, >> leading to confusion. .... and > > I agree. However, I do think "HTML: The Markup Language" is a useful > document--at least for language lawyer types. Instead of characterizing > it as a normative "language spec", I think it would be better to > characterize it as an informative HTML5 reference for document producers > and to make clear that instead of being a normative source document, it > combines content from from the normative spec and from particular > implementations. .... Are we not then talking simply about a modularity issue? In other words, would it not be possible to make a normative HTML5 language specification, and then reference that specification from another that defined APIs and so on? One definitive source for the language, and a further definitive source for the API, referencing the language specification. Regards, - johnk
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 15:12:52 UTC