- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:18 +0100
- 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