- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:26:32 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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 <ian@hixie.ch>, 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