- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:48:07 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> >> Regardless of who funds the W3C as a whole, the charter of this >> working group is quite clear on this point: >> >> "A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of >> documents and applications on the World Wide Web." > ... And the W3C glossary has the following definitions: 1. "(three words; also known as WWW) The set of all information accessible using computers and networking, each unit of information identified by a URI." 2. "An information space in which items of interest are identified by Uniform Resource Identifiers." (<http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=world+wide+web>) > I think we should treat usefuleness in a controlled environment as an > opportunistic benefit, but not a primary goal. In particular, if a > feature is truly only useful for controlled environments, then it's not > obvious it needs to be conforming for authors. > ... I'm not convinced that the distinction makes a lot of sense. For instance, an enterprise portal might be a "controlled environment". Is it on the public web? If I can access it from outside the firewall, behind a login mechanism? Yes? No? How is this different from pages on Amazon or my bank that require login? In the end, what should be relevant is what developers ask for. And I *know* for a fact that in many "controlled environments" validity is important, so making things non-conforming that *are* in use in these controlled environments doesn't seem productive to me. In particular if we want these environments to adopt HTML 5. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 17:48:44 UTC