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

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:45:45 +0100
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uogtmjai64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:22 +0100, Steven Faulkner  
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to gather data on  the veracity of statements about 'what web
> devlopers want' I have emailed the web standards group posing  the
> question
> "As a web developer do you find the 'HTML5 the mark up language' a
> useful document?"
> wsg mailing list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/maillist.html
> and have asked for feedback on twitter:
> Is HTML5 mark up spec http://shrinkster.com/13zy useful compared to
> the fullblown spec http://shrinkster.com/13zz use #html5ml in reply

It seems to me that is not a question of whether the specification is  
useful to some people; I'm sure it is. Rather, the question is why this  
specification needs to be normative given that it contains the same  
information as the HTML 5 specification already does. The proponents for  
publishing this specification do not seem really upfront about that, which  
gives the feeling that there is a hidden agenda.

If the goal is just to have wider review on whether this is a good idea  
saying it is non-normative should be fine. (E.g.  
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ has got plenty of (mostly positive,  
afaict) review from Web developers even though it is a non-normative  
document.) If we later decide that splitting the specification up along  
this axis is a good idea and the WG agrees that Mike's draft can be used  
as a basis for the markup language parts we can always change it to being  
normative then.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:46:28 UTC

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