Re: HTML 4.02

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Toby Inkster<> wrote:
> I'm not answering all questions, but here are some answers:
> On 23 Aug 2009, at 20:04, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> To be fair, that's only because you've left out some things that would
>> be necessary to actually have an unambiguous, coherent spec.
> Certainly it could do with beefing up a bit, but I have neither the time nor
> the inclination. However, if you consider the links to be normative
> references, it's actually quite usable as a spec.

I don't think it's a very good-faith effort if you don't have the
effort to actually put them together.  If you want to use this set of
features in your own stuff, fine, but don't pretend to call it a
standard or a version of HTML if you're not willing to put in the
effort to make it a *real* one.

For example, does any major browser implement <script implements>?  If
so, how do you use it?  I don't see any description of how I'm
supposed to get it to work at the link you provide.  This is
essentially useless.

Similar, is <access> or @inputmode implemented anywhere?

There's the aforementioned issues with ARIA integrating into a
language that already has defined and widely-recognized semantics.
How do you resolve clashes?

If you're including <time>, are you including all the things that are
referred to in its section in the HTML5 spec?  This also possibly
touches on parsing and DOM issues that are defined by HTML5.

>> What problems are being solved by these nice bits?  What criteria did
>> you have for what to include and exclude?
> Criteria: I included stuff I liked and did not include stuff I did not like.
> I did originally plan to run a survey on what should go in and what should
> stay out, and although I finished writing the survey, never got around to
> writing it.

Without any sort of even vaguely objective criteria, though, how are
we supposed to know if these solve any relevant problems?


Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 21:33:22 UTC