definitions [was: closing on 2009-09-03]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>>>> Ian Hickson <>, 2009-08-26 02:28 +0000:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>>> If we actually defined each element and each attribute in the way that
>>>>>> HTML4 does *and* define its operational behavior for the DOM then the
>>>>>> specification would satisfy all implementations.
>>>>> I don't know what it means to "define" an element if that is not to
>>>>> define its operational behaviour.
>>>> It means defining what the element represents.
>>> "represents" in the HTML5 spec when used about elements and attributes 
>>> is a term that just refers to the media-independent rendering of those 
>>> features, which as far as I can tell doesn't apply to <a name>. Did 
>>> you have something else in mind?
>> With all due respect, Ian: I think it's obvious that Mike has in mind, 
>> and it's not what you said.
> If you think it's obvious, maybe you would be willing to explain it to me?
> The only interpretation that I can see is that Mike means non-normative 
> text giving an introduction to the feature to help authors use it. That, 
> however, is not a definition, and would in any case be inappropriate for 
> obsolete features such as those being discussed here.

I might be wrong, and if so, I'll blow what little credibility I have 
and derail this discussion, but given that the discussion doesn't seem 
to be moving forward very fast, I guess it is worth the risk.

It seems to me that in HTMLT5 there is a difference between <b> and 
<strong> that is both normative and can not be described in terms of 
browser implementations.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 21:27:12 UTC