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

Re: Element Whitelisting

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:18 +0100
Message-ID: <49C8F01E.3030401@opera.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The benefits of putting the list in the same document as that which
>> defines the vocabulary is purely an editorial and process benefit, it
>> isn't a benefit to implementors. Benefits to implementors outweigh
>> benefits to us. I personally would rather not have to maintain this list
>> myself, just like I'm sure the SVGWG would rather be in control of that
>> part of the HTML parsing rules instead of having to potentially have
>> cross-working group discussions with each new element; but our own 
>> desires
>> are the least important concern here, according to our "priority of
>> constituencies" design principle.
> If we want the list to be more malleable than the rest of the algorithm 
> definition document, the algorithm spec should have a link to a URI 
> which will dereference to the latest list at any given point in time. A 
> great bonus would be if the document at the URI came with revision history.

That sounds acceptable to me from the point of view of implementing this 
in html5lib. (For comparison, it would not be acceptable if I was 
expected to reconstruct the list myself from some version of the SVG spec).
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 14:37:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:44 UTC