- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:40:43 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > I think we are running up against my lack of understanding of your > view of > how standards should work again. I'm still hoping that one day you > might > continue our conversation wherein I was trying to understand where you > were coming from: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0233.html > > Without understanding your positions, I really don't know how to > address > your feedback. Yes, you do. I have no respect for your delaying tactics, Ian. > (For instance, above, you use the word "defined" in a way > that is completely at odds with my understanding. A feature is fully > "defined", as I understand it, by the combination of authoring and > implementation conformance criteria, which we have for <a name>, > yet you > do not consider it to be "defined".) I use "defined" as it is found in any English dictionary. The only thing HTML5 draft defines related to <a name> is browser behavior in response to a fragment retrieval request, which may be sufficient for a BROWSER that is limited to performing view operations. It does not define the attribute's meaning, nor the reason one might find it embedded in "text/html", nor the rationale for deprecating such content in favor of id-decorated elements. That is the difference between a spec that merely defines one version of the language versus a spec that supplants all definitions of the language, which is the point of the issue that is being suggested for closure. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 22:41:09 UTC