W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ISSUE-59: normative-language-reference FPWD

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:47:36 +0100
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <48655A3D-85A2-423D-B396-CE92F800645E@berjon.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

On Jan 23, 2009, at 14:32 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 2) "HTML 5: The Markup Language" makes a schema normative.  
> Experience with HTML4 shows that normative schemas freeze innovation  
> and competition in validator development, because one implementation  
> is declared normative and improvements on the implementation are  
> considered wrong. For years, HTML4 validation wasn't improved at  
> all. Validator.nu, Validome and Relaxed have now improved on things  
> but are still seen as illegitimate compared to DTD-based HTML4  
> validation. If the document is frozen at a certain snapshot in time  
> (as a REC would be frozen), validators either couldn't improve or  
> would have to deviate from the normative schema at the risk of being  
> perceived illegitimate. A schema is code--a part of a validator  
> implementation. WGs don't make particular snapshots of C++ code  
> normative, either.

I don't personally see much value in providing a normative schema for  
HTML so I can live with any decision on this, but while I agree with  
the sentiment Henri expresses above I don't believe that the statement  
is entirely correct. If the schema were made normative, it would be  
possible to dance around it being to One True Schema. For instance, it  
could be defined as baseline validation, indicating that no validator  
can be conformant if it accepts something that the schema rejects; but  
a validator would be allowed in being stricter.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 14:48:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC