- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:26:07 -0700
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
(resending; sent this earlier but didn't show up in archives?) It's clearer to me now that the issue we've been discussing about the title and front matter of the document -- which seem like they might be editorial -- are more properly raised as the technical issue of the scope of applicability of the document. The request to rename the document seems really to be a request to narrow the claimed scope of applicability. However, the group is not chartered to produce a document of narrower scope, and the document purports to be applicable to all HTML processors. Taking the technical issue of document scope and casting it as an editorial issue of document title has seemed rude. I don't think it is within the charter of the working group to produce a document of narrower scope than a full definition of HTML as a markup language, and that we should stop pursuing ways of describing a narrower scope. Rather, if there are ways in which the document is unsuitable for some classes of applications, we should fix them. The discussion about "HTML interpreter" vs "HTML User Agent" is another example of the discussion about document scope -- conformance requirements need to be clear about the scope of applications they apply to. Requirements to present something to "the user" or ask "the user" for judgement should be restricted to those applications which have an identifiable "user", for exmaple. Now, I remember distinctly that at the TPAC, someone in the room asserted that (and I think I'm quoting literally), "all that mattered" were the "four major browsers", with the implication that other HTML applications, and other categories of HTML applications, didn't count. I didn't hear anyone else objecting to this assertion. And the perspective makes a good deal of sense, actually. If the "four major browsers" can establish uniform behavior, it establishes a baseline of interoperability on top of which additional new features can be added. Without interoperability at the baseline of browsers, content will be stuck in a "best viewed by" world. I think, though, going forward, I'd like to stop talking about the "title" or the intended scope of the document. Let's accept that the required scope is "all HTML processors" and fix the things that are inappropriate for the broader scope. In some cases, the fix could be to take a requirement that is currently written as applying to all HTML processors and to narrow the scope of the requirement. In any case, I hope we can proceed on discussion of document scope without having the discussion personified. Regards, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 19:26:48 UTC