W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: New split-out drafts

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 01:51:45 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.1001090146430.17515@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >
> > As part of addressing some bugs over the past few days, I've 
> > reorganised the HTML5 spec into a number of subspecs.
> >
> >   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?content-type=text/html
> >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/vocabulary/Overview.html
> >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/core/Overview.html
> >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html
> >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/Overview.html
> >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/Overview.html
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we public FPWDs for these new drafts (all but 
> > the first once above, which we've already published; presumably a 
> > regular WD would be suitable at this time for that draft).
> The split between "vocabulary" and "core" is very awkward. For example 
> several attributes are defined in the "core" spec, whereas I would have 
> expected them all to be defined in the "vocabulary" spec.

All of these splits are very awkward. Just look at the "delta" spec 
nonsense in the microdata draft, where it tries to "fix" the rules for 
<link> and <meta>, or the way the rules in the Core spec have to defer to 
the rules in the the 2D Context spec for cloning, the way the Vocabulary 
spec for <iframe> has to defer to the Core spec for Window and browsing 
contexts and the way the Core spec has to defer back to the Vocabulary 
spec for the parsing, the way the Communications spec adds things to 
Window and the way communicating between Window objects in the Core spec 
that are kept in <iframe>s in the Vocabulary spec needs the postMessage 
API in the Communications spec...

IMHO this is a terrible way to organise the spec, it would be much better 
as a single document exactly as the WHATWG has it:


(In fact it would be even better IMHO if we could merge back in things 
like the Web Storage, Web Sockets API and Protocol, Workers, and 
Server-sent Events specs back into one "Web platform" spec, like this:


I'd even argue that we should go as far as adding in XHR2, CORS, and other 
"core" Web specs, though I haven't set that up yet. The idea that the Web 
platform should have dozens of specs is not one that makes much sense to me.)

> I support the idea of splitting out things like the Window object, 
> browsing context, History, and similar things that aren't actually HTML 
> specific.

They're only "not actually HTML specific" in the vaguest of senses, to be 
honest. But yes, a concentrated effort for several months could split this 
into the more HTML-specific and the more generic parts. Unfortunately we 
don't have the editing manpower to do that currently. (Or at least, nobody 
has volunteered to do the work.)

> However I don't think the split between these two documents are 
> currently good and will ultimately lead to more confusion and 
> complexity, than it helps with those things.

I agree.

> Thus I reluctantly suggest that these two documents be merged back 
> together again. At least for now.

If you could work with Shelley to see if you could come to an agreement on 
a compromise, that would be most helpful. Failing that, reopen this bug:


...and object to the change.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 01:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC