- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:27:51 +0300
- To: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 26, 2009, at 20:00, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > The reader also has to follow the links to section 6.12.1 in order > to find the attribute definitions. Has anyone tried to read > this document in printed form? I have, although that was in 2006 when the spec was under a megabyte in size. I think using a CSS formatter that can turn document-internal links into page number references is essential. If you don't have such a CSS formatter, preformatted PDF versions are linked from the header of the WHATWG version of the spec. On Aug 26, 2009, at 20:22, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I don't care about that use case. I care about knowing what each > of those elements is intended to represent and knowing that those > elements are not being used as they should. I couldn't care less > if every single browser had its own unique presentation of that > brokenness and entirely different internal DOM structures. Would you be OK with the abstract tree being called "the Infoset" as opposed to "the DOM"? > None of that is relevant to *my* implementations of HTML. [...] > What I don't agree with is the theory that HTML can be *defined* in > terms of browser behavior. My experience with developing Validator.nu has been that the spec is very suitable as a guide for writing non-DOM software. Are you aware of the following text in the spec? "Implementations that do not support scripting (or which have their scripting features disabled entirely) are exempt from supporting the events and DOM interfaces mentioned in this specification. For the parts of this specification that are defined in terms of an events model or in terms of the DOM, such user agents must still act as if events and the DOM were supported." http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#non-scripted Thus, if your app doesn't support scripting (in the sense of executing author-supplied scripts), it doesn't need to have a concrete DOM, and "the DOM" in the spec can be treated as an abstract definitional aid like "the Infoset". -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 10:28:34 UTC