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

Re: algorithmic normative conformance requirements, design principles, etc.

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 08:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0905280842200.10857@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> If you define that changes to the availability happens on events fired 
> at the same event loop as what runs the rest of the execution, then the 
> above program will always work. This is in practice how all 
> implementations that I know if work already since otherwise you'd need 
> to have a multi-threaded DOM, something that I haven't heard of anyone 
> implementing.
> But I agree that the spec ideally needs to spell this requirement out.

It actually does spell this out, though maybe it could be made more 
explicit. I'm not sure how, though. This seems like a very obscure case to 
have an explicit note or example about.

> As stated before, I suspect that there are things in the current spec 
> that would be better written using a semantic description than a 
> algorithmic one. And I also hope and think that Ian would replace 
> current text with a semantic description if one was submitted to this 
> list. As long as that description is as exhaustive in the details it 
> defines and is arguably better (for example by being semantic where that 
> is appropriate).

Yes, absolutely. I actually try to use semantic descriptions whenever 
possible, I have just found it very hard to do so for all but the most 
trivial of cases due to the level of detail involved.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 08:45:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC