- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:50:31 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt, Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:35:10 +0100: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Tab Atkins Jr., Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:25:08 -0800: >>> The "applicable specification" clause ensures that the extension is >>> accepted by a large enough group of people to make the validator >>> authors recognize it, which is a reasonable minimum quality bar. >> >> We don't really know how the "applicable spec" mechanism will work. But >> I don't think we'll simply hand it over to the validator team to tell >> what it is. > > As far as HTML5 "the HTML5 spec draft" > is concerned, a specification is an applicable > specification when its requirements are recognised as applicable by > the person checking the conformance of a document. What most people will be interested in is what the W3 Validator considers valid. And that is a reason to a) avoid extensions = use @profile/@class based extensions instead, b) if you do go for an extension, make sure that it can be W3 validated = best thing is to submit the spec to the W3. I don't think you have said anything new in this letter. But thanks anyhow. [...] > Note that it's still possible to use custom schemas to validate your > documents if you like. Validator.nu even provides UI for it [2]. > But there is no reason for such schemas to be explicitly linked with > your document by, e.g. using a custom DOCTYPE or other schema > specific syntax. There is a reason: That you can automatically validate it. Good for your customers as well. > With it now possible to make a conformance claim for a document with > regards to any specification, I want to make it clear that I'm not > suggesting that authors can get away with pretty much anything just > by writing their own spec and claiming it's applicable. This would > completely ignore the goal of interoperability and the benefits of > widespread review and support. Or, may it simply ignores a /tool/ for interoperability. > Although this model tends to naturally centralise itself, it is > effectively a model controlled by the market, as opposed to ivory > tower spec writers. This is a good thing and the result of this is > that simply having a spec published by a standards organisation does > not inherently mean widespread recognition and support; rather, such > support must be built from the bottom up, ideally during the spec's > development. > > This is why the ideas about distributed extensibility (ISSUE-41) are > bad. Such extensibility actively encourages extensions without > attaining widespread support or interoperability. The idea of using > the profile attribute as a way to declare extensions, and other ideas > to provide versioning (ISSUE-4 DOCTYPE versioning), not only fails > for this reason, but also miss the point of not allowing documents to > make self-conformance claims. This is why I believe both ISSUE-4 and > ISSUE-41 should both be closed with no spec changes. The above two paragraphs is where we don't share views at all. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 11:51:06 UTC